Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

MELVILLE TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SETTLED LAND ACT, 1925 (SECTION 41)

Mr. Box: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardships caused by the Settled Land Act, 1925, which restricts the granting of a new lease to not more than 50 years where such properties are held in trust; and if he will introduce amending legislation to remove this restriction.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John Hobson): I am not aware of any hardships caused by the provisions of Section 41 of the Settled Land Act, 1925. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of such hardships, I will, of course, gladly consider it.

Mr. Box: Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that in seeking additional leases of fifty years sitting tenants often have to surrender as much as eighteen years and, therefore, get a net increase of only some thirty-two years? I have such cases in my constituency. Is he further aware that some trustees apparently dislike the present restriction of the law and that I have heard of cases Where they are breaking it: Will he, as he has indicated, give further consideration to this matter in company with his right hon. Friend the Minister

dof Housing when they are carrying out the current review of the leasehold system for the whole of the country?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir. We will certainly consider the points my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. and learned Friend take account of the fact that in South Wales, in particular, we are in some difficulty owing to the high incidence of the leasehold system as such which has led to the position that we have many leases which are not mort-gagable but which have about twenty, thirty or forty years unexpired? Any restriction of this kind bears particularly hard on us for these reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (LAND)

Mr. Snow: asked the Attorney-General what procedures regarding notice to the public are required to be followed by public departments desiring to abrogate a published intention to acquire, or support the purchase of, land at present in the possession of another public department.

The Solicitor-General: There are no statutory provisions governing the procedure followed by public departments in this matter. If the hon. Member has any specific instance in mind, I suggest that he should put a Question to the Minister in charge of the Department concerned.

Mr. Snow: Does the Solicitor-General consider that the public interest is well served in the case where there is a relatively sudden change of Departmental policy and where a local authority or, for that matter, potential private purchasers may not have time to reassess their financial liabilities and assets in the matter?

The Solicitor-General: I quite appreciate that there may be difficulty in particular cases about a sudden change of policy, but that would be entirely a matter for the Department concerned. I am afraid that I could not give a general opinion about the public interest or the effect upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Experiments on Living Animals

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years permission to prosecute a person licensed to perform experiments on living animals, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, has been refused.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): No application for my right hon. Friend's consent to a prosecution was made in this period.

Sir Richard Glyn: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will realise that there is a certain amount of public apprehension about the possibility of cruelty in these cases. Can he assure the House that if any case of cruelty comes to the knowledge of his Department a prosecution will be instituted, even if a private complaint has not been laid?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I can certainly give that assurance. We believe that there have been no prosecutions because the Act is honestly observed to the best of their ability by those who work it. The minor infractions are, of course, reported in the annual returns, and my hon. and gallant Friend will see that in those cases it is almost always a case of inadvertence rather for a more serious motive

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the widespread apprehension that exists about these experiments and the widespread fear that there is unnecessary pain and cruelty? Seeing that there are now only six inspectors compared with three twenty years ago, when then the experiments were about one-fifth of what they are now, will he ask his right hon. Friend to set up a small committee of inquiry into the whole issue, if only to relieve public anxiety?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am well aware of the degree of public anxiety, but I can assure the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) that it really is based on the misconception that the experiments of which there has been the greatest growth are in any way surgical experiments. The growth is almost entirely due to the fact that

now, by Statute, we are obliged to see that many new substances that are necessary for the health of the human race are injected or fed into animals. In the vast proportion of cases there is no question of cutting or vivisection in the old sense of the word.

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking concerning suffering caused to rabbits, details of which have been sent him by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; and, in view of the fresh evidence contained in these cases, whether he is still satisfied that his staff is adequate to meet the situation.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Inspectors under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, are always ready to inquire into any case of unnecessary suffering alleged to have been caused in experiments; but the information sent by my hon. Friend is not sufficiently specific to enable us to trace the place and circumstances in which these experiments are said to have been carried out.

Sir W. Teeling: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is making quite big propaganda— if one cares to call it that— throughout the country, presumably quite genuinely, on this whole subject, not only with regard to rabbits, but with regard to other animals as well? The Act seems to be rather out of date today and, presumably, there are various loopholes in it which are being used. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people are very dissatisfied that practically no prosecutions are brought under the Act by the Home Office representatives, and does he feel satisfied that enough is being done to prevent what reputable societies such as the R.S.P.C.A. regard quite definitely as very bad practices?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We have had a Question today about the number of prosecutions and I dealt with that part of the matter then. There are subsequent Questions about the pamphlets issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I am waiting for more details of the experiments mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question because we should hope to


examine them. Often in these cases, when details are finally sent, including photographs, we find that they relate to experiments which have taken place outside the United Kingdom altogether.

Sir W. Teeling: On a point of order. In view of the fact that it is obviously impossible to get an answer to these questions——

Mr. Speaker: No.

Sir W. Teeling: I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies.

Mr. Speaker: I have repeatedly to ask hon. Members to adhere to the traditional formula and not to make speeches when giving notice.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has studied the recent demands of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, details of which have been sent to him, with regard to experiments on animals; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes, Sir. The proposals made are in line with those put to my right hon. Friend when he received a deputation from the Society last year. My right hon. Friend then gave a full reply to the Society's representations and an assurance that every care was taken to see that all the requirements of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, are fully observed.

Mr. Fisher: Are there sufficient inspectors to watch the more serious operations on animals? If not, would there be sufficient qualified vets to act as additional inspectors if more were thought to be needed? Would it be helpful to invite one or two extra additional veterinary surgeons to serve on the Advisory Committee, and would it be helpful in reassuring public opinion to try to arrange, possibly, for hon. Members of this House to visit some of these licensed premises?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In reply to the latter part of that question, certainly we should be happy to try to at-range for these visits. As to the appointment of more inspectors, we are of opinion that there are at present enough inspectors

for this purpose. We should welcome inspectors with veterinary qualifications provided they also have medical qualifications. On this latter point, my right hon. Friend insists. There is at present one veterinary surgeon serving on the Advisory Committee, but if one or more others are suggested, we will certainly consider that and see whether, with the agreement of the Chairman, they could be co-opted.

Immigration (European Economic Community)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in United Kingdom immigration laws will be necessary if the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Her Majesty's Government are examining the legal implications of adherence to the Treaty of Rome, but I cannot yet make any statement about changes which might be needed in our immigration legislation.

Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position in this country under the recently passed Commonwealth Immigrants Act is, if anything, more liberal than the position obtaining in the Common Market at present, and does he think that this Act would have to be amended if we joined?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is precisely because we are at the beginning of negotiations and because the full implications of the Treaty of Rome are not clear that I cannot yet give an answer to my hon. Friend's Question.

Mr. Fletcher: Is it the Home Secretary's conception that, if we join the Common Market, nationals of Common Market territories will, as a consequence, be able to come to this country without restriction?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The articles of the Treaty of Rome which relate to this are not so simple as that. They entail the question of obtaining and having a job to come to.

Jury Service

Mr. McKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Territorials are exempt from service as jurymen when on part-time duties but Royal Naval Reserve officers and men are still being called to sit as jurymen; and if, in his review of the need for legislation regarding jury service, he will take into account the desirability of enabling Royal Naval Reserve personnel also to be exempt from jury service.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend is aware of the position and has noted it for consideration.

Mr. McKay: Will the Minister tell the House what his attitude is on this matter? It seems somewhat extraordinary that there should be this discrimination against one section of the Forces.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We recognise that there is an anomaly here. We do not think that it leads to hardship in practice in view of the fact that persons charged with summoning a jury have a discretion to excuse anyone so summoned for good reason. The persons whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind usually have a good reason which they could substantiate.

Betting Offices

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the National Greyhound Racing Society of Great Britain concerning the closing hours of betting offices.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The Society has brought to my right hon. Friend's attention a resolution passed at its annual general meeting on 16th May opposing any extension of the present closing hours of 6.30 p.m. for licensed betting offices.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister resist any pressures put upon him or his Department to extend this form of betting, bearing in mind that to extend the hours would not be in the public interest?

Mr. Renton: When the Bill was before the House, a majority of hon. Members

were in favour of the closing time of 6.30 p.m. which had been recommended by the Royal Commission. We certainly shall not be rushed into making any change.

Motor Vehicles, London (Parking)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the congestion which occurs nightly in Down Street, London, W.1, where cars are parked on both sides of the street and often half on the pavement, in Derby Street, and in Chesterfield Gardens where three and sometimes four lines of cars are parked to the great inconvenience of residents; and what action he is taking to prevent this congestion.

Mr. Renton: The Commissioner of Police is aware that obstruction is sometimes caused by vehicles parked in these streets, but, in view of the shortage of manpower, the police must at present give priority to keeping the principal thoroughfares clear. My hon. Friend's Question has, however, been brought to the notice of police officers on duty in the area.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is virtually impossible at night to pass through some of these streets and that Chesterfield Gardens is a cul-de-sac and, since motorists are not always aware of this fact, they enter the street and then have to turn round in order to come out again, thus making matters much worse? At least, could a sign be erected at the entrance of Chesterfield Gardens indicating that it is a cul-de-sac, and also might it be possible for some of the police who not so long ago were extremely active in Curzon Street to go round and look at the motor cars parked there?

Mr. Renton: I have no doubt that the Commissioner will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I ask him to remember that the streets named in his Question are used by only a small amount of traffic in the evenings and it would be difficult to justify large-scale removal of vehicles or other proceedings by the police.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that he is quite


wrong in saying that Chesterfield Gardens, for instance, is used by only a small number of cars at night? It is absolutely jammed at night and people find it quite impossible to get in and out of Chesterfield Gardens.

Mr. P. Williams: That is why so few cars use it.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the dangerous practice of parking cars by night on street corners in London so as to make it impossible for a motorist entering from a side street to see traffic; and if he will make and enforce regulations to prevent this practice.

Mr. Renton: The police already have adequate powers to deal with any vehicle which is left on a road in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other users of the road, and I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a large proportion of the cars removed by the police are removed because they are causing serious obstruction at road junctions.

Mr. Johnson: Will my hon. and learned Friend visit Curzon Street— it would be perfectly proper for him to do so— and see for himself whether there is a car parked right on every street corner, with the result that it is quite impossible for drivers coming out of the side streets to see other traffic, and it is equally impossible for motorists in Curzon Street to see vehicles coming in? Is not this an extremely dangerous state of affairs?

Mr. Renton: I have, of course, visited Curzon Street, and I should gladly do so again in order to examine the conditions to Which my hon. Friend has referred, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the enforcement of the traffic law is a matter for the Commissioner and that, even if I were to inform myself in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, it would still be for the Commissioner to decide how to deal with the matter.

Mr. Tomney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that appropriate police action is taken to prohibit the all-night parking of long-distance lorries in Aldine Street, Shepherd's Bush, W.12.

Mr. Renton: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the local police give such attention to this problem as their other responsibilities permit, and that suitable action is taken when a breach of the law is observed.

Mr. Tomney: That is all very well, but is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are adequate enclosed car-parking facilities available within 200 yards of this area which are not used, that minor accidents are being caused to children who play around the lorries in the evenings, and that my constituents are being kept awake at all hours of the night by lorries arriving and departing? As car-parking facilities are available within 200 yards, why cannot the police insist upon them being used to the full?

Mr. Renton: It is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The street is, in fact, little used for through-traffic and, therefore, it is not easy to get a prosecution for obstruction. Nevertheless, the police have taken action in a good many cases in the last twelve months. On the question of the general nuisance caused by night parking of lorries, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has appointed a working party to hold an inquiry.

Mr. Tomney: The Minister's statement is not true. The street is used for through-traffic. Anybody who knows the area will realise that Shepherds Bush can be avoided by using this area. It sometimes cuts out as much as twenty minutes' waiting time at traffic lights. It is no good saying the street is not used. Car-parking facilities are available and should be used, and the police should have authority to ensure that they are used. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by the Metropolitan Police to deal with the growing inconvenience caused by parking of private and commercial vehicles in residential areas.

Mr. Renton: Inconvenience in itself is not a ground for police action, but I am informed by the Commissioner of


Police that suitable action is taken when a breach of the law is observed.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that that kind of answer, which we have been getting for a long time past, gives no satisfaction at all to the residents who are affected by all the day and night parking that goes on? Does he not realise that this is an intolerable nuisance? Is it not a fact that the matter has been brought to the attention of the various Government Departments concerned on many occasions during many months past and yet nothing is being done to provide those who live in the residential areas of London with the peace and quiet to which they are entitled?

Mr. Renton: As I indicated in answer to a previous Question, the Minister of Transport realises that this is a question which needs to be looked into and is having an inquiry into it. Meanwhile, the duty of the police is to enforce the law. They have, of course, to enforce the law relating to obstruction of highways. They have no power to enforce a law which does not exist, and there is no law which prevents minor inconvenience, or even major inconvenience, of this kind unless a criminal offence is committed.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is not merely a question of inconvenience and obstruction? Have there not been numerous cases in which the habit of parking lorries in private streets has encumbered the fire services in dealing with fire risks in residential areas of London?

Mr. Renton: I understand that where that occurs, if it occurs on the highway, then there is, of course, obstruction, and the police are able to take action.

Election Expenses

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to raise the limit on election expenses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. Friend has received very few representations. He is not aware of any widespread

demand to change the existing arrangements.

Mr. Allaun: Did not the Minister see the resolutions from Conservative associations and the statement by the Leader of the House that the 1949 scale of expenses was quite unreal today? May we take it that this utterly unfair proposal, which would give still more power to the money-bags, has now been dropped, even if vast sums of money can still be spent in other ways?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am aware of the resolutions to the Conservative Central Council, which are, I think, what the hon. Gentleman has in mind I spoke against those resolutions myself, and I am glad to say that they were defeated.

Miss Bacon: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is making a mockery of election law if, at the same time as there is a restriction on the spending of individual candidates, vast sums of money may be spent nationally by the national party organisations in the months preceding a General Election? Will he, far from increasing the amount which can be spent by candidates, restrict the amount which can be so spent nationally?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That goes very much wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Child Care Services, London

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the general disquiet among people responsible for the children's services in the London area at the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to fragment the London County Children's Department into 14 small separate authorities; and what representations Her Majesty's Government have received in the matter.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Direct representations about the reorganisation of the child care service in the Greater London area have come mostly from the London County Council and its staff, but I am aware that concern has also been expressed by others. These views have been considered, but the Government adhere to the belief that responsibility


for child care is a proper function for for the proposed London boroughs. We recognise that there will be difficult transitional problems, particularly in relation to residential establishments and to the needs of children requiring residential care, and we propose to discuss with the authorities concerned the best way of overcoming these difficulties and of ensuring that the well-being of the children is safeguarded.

Mr. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that among those whom he dismisses as others "are some of the most authoritative and impressive people working in this field? Is he further aware that this is an absolutely vital service, quite as vital as the education service, and that his colleague the Minister of Education has been able to make some fresh proposals departing from the Government's original ideas which have made people feel rather happier? I raise this matter, not in order to argue the general issue— we have argued that before, and I do not propose to argue it again— but because we are terribly frightened of what will happen to this service if it is broken up in this way in view of the vast distinctions which there are between boroughs. When the right hon. Gentleman is giving further thought to this matter, will he be willing to see me and some of my hon. Friends to discuss it?

Mr. Butler: I did not mean to dismiss anyone in a derogatory way. We have had a great deal of thought on this matter, which is a very difficult one to decide. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a vital service, but there is a difference from the arrangement made over the education service, because the child care service is based increasingly on work in the field by the child care officers and we feel that a close association with the personal and environmental health service, with welfare and housing, is desirable. That is why I stated the conclusion which the Government had reached. I have indicated that there are difficult transitional problems, and I will certainly be ready to see the right hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his latter statement. With regard to his earlier remark about field work, has he any idea of the difference,

for example, between the proposed new borough of Lambeth and Southwark, an area which I know very well indeed, with 18 out of every 1,000 children in its care, and Hampstead, a borough with a much higher rateable value and no more than 5 out of every 1,000 children in its care? The facilities will not be where the need is, and that is why we want so much to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter.

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the big discrepancies between the boroughs. Nevertheless, the association of the health and welfare services is one to which we attach importance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about it, let us do so.

Sir G. Nicholson: The reasons may be good or they may be bad, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many more London children go to residential institutions than are boarded out? Personally, I regret it, but nevertheless that is the position. Anyhow, the result is that London's residential institutions are a model for the country. Will my right hon. Friend take particular care to ensure that they are not broken up in any way?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the high quality of the service rendered by the London County Council. I have met the Chairman of the Child Care Committee, who was accompanied by other people of great distinction interested in this subject. I am aware of these homes and their importance, and that is why we are having these preliminary discussions.

Mr. Reynolds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar problems arise in Middlesex and that to the best of my knowledge no new borough in Middlesex nor any existing one has expressed any desire to take this job from the county council? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position in Middlesex as well?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Administration of Justice, London

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in respect


of the administration of justice and magistrates courts within Essex local authorities, including the Essex County Council, affected by the proposed Greated London local government reorganisation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The White Paper on London Government published last November explained that, when proposals for the administrative structure for local government had been settled, the Government would give attention to such related matters as the arrangements for the administration of justice. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, and with other Ministers concerned, on these matters, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Sorensen: When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make a statement? Will he consider the desirability of making the prospective new Greater London authority coincidental with the Metropolitan Police area to avoid overlapping? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is need for a closer liaison between the local authorities on the one hand and the magistrates' courts on the other?

Mr. Butler: All these points have been discussed by me with my colleagues principally concerned. I will keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman and will make a statement as soon as I can.

Summer Time

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider continuing Summer Time throughout the year in order to encourage trade between the United Kingdom and Western Europe.

Mr. Renton: This factor will be taken into account in fixing the period of Summer Time for 1963 and later years.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that during active business hours in the winter it is frequently very much more difficult to get through on the Continental telephone than it is in the summer? This is due to the fact that by the time we have taken action on the morning's mail the Continentals are going to lunch and that by the time they get back from lunch we have gone to lunch. In order to increase Continental

trade, will my hon. and learned Friend look at this matter very carefully?

Mr. Renton: Of course, there are certain differences in geography, climate and social custom between this country and Continental countries, but we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. We shall be considering this matter in the autumn with a view to making arrangements for next year.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister of State give an assurance that, even if we join the Common Market, we shall still be able to make whatever arrangements suit us best with regard to Summer Time?

Probation Officers

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers appointed last year in England and Wales were untrained on taking up posts; what percentage of probation officers during the last three years have taken up posts without prior training; and when he expects to receive the report of the Joint Negotiating Committee to which he has referred the question of the reassessment of salaries.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is 94, and to the second part 44· 6 per cent. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 17th May.

Mr. Abse: Is it not abundantly clear that the figures which the Home Secretary has given illustrate the urgent necessity of giving salaries to harassed and overburdened probation officers which will attract fully trained people? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it costs £ 16 a year to put someone on probation and £ 400 a year to put someone in an institution. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to stimulate rather than to prevent crime by preventing probation officers from having an adequate salary?

Mr. Butler: I have no wish to prevent probation officers from having an adequate salary. We hope that in due course we shall be able to meet their needs, but


I cannot add to the statement made on 17th May.

Mr. Abse: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the rejection by the Probation Officers' Association of his proposal to limit a salary increase to 2½ per cent., if he will reconsider his decision in the matter.

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has received from the joint negotiating committee on probation officers' salaries to his decision that a salary increase shall not exceed 2½ per cent.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the rejection by the National Association of Probation Officers of his proposal to limit the increase in salaries in the probation service to 2½ per cent. he will now approve the recommendation of the joint negotiating committee for an increase of 10 per cent. as from 1st April, 1962, with. out prejudice to implementing the full recommendations of the Morison Committee at an early date.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Government must regretfully adhere to the decision announced on 17th May. No s
communication has been received from the Joint Negotiating Committee since the decision was made known to it on that day.

Dr. King: As the wage pause bears most heavily on this small but important group which the whole House, including the Home Secretary, admits to be understaffed and underpaid, will not the Home Secretary consider the matter again, realising that he can do justice to this little group of important servants of his without jettisoning the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Butler: I am very sorry, but I cannot depart from the Government's decision or from the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 17th May, in which he said, as the House will remember, that
the Government were in no doubt that the probation service ought to receive a substan-

tial increase of pay at the appropriate time and were prepared to examine its claims at the beginning of next year."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 139.,]

Mr. C. Royle: In view of the fact that the Departmental Committee recommended a rise of an average of 30 per cent. and that the joint negotiating committee recommended a 10 per cent. rise without consideration of the Departmental Committee's Report, and in view also of the fact that the probation officers have refrained from asking for a rise during the latter part of the Committee's deliberations, does not the Minister think that what he is now doing is the most outstanding despicable act we have seen during the incidence of the wage pause?

Mr. Butler: The facts as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question are correct. In regard to his observations, I can only say that the Government regret their decision. Taken in conjunction with the statement which I have just made about the end of the year, that is as much as I can say at the moment.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary realise that this deplorable decision has caused great indignation and that this is not merely a question of an increase in pay, but a question of giving recognition to the enhanced status of probation officers in the service of the community, as recognised by the Morison Report? This case raises totally different considerations from all other wage claims. In view of the Morison Committee's Report and the recommendation, to which the Home Secretary's representative agreed, for an immediate increase of 10 per cent., will not the Minister reconsider the matter?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot alter the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend and now repeated by me today. It does, however, acknowledge that a substantial increase of pay at the appropriate time is reasonable.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask, because I am a magistrate, whether my right hon. Friend can explain why within the Government's incomes policy some people within the range of Government servants are limited to 2½ per cent. increases, some to 3½ per cent. and some to even


higher levels? Why cannot they all have the same, and perhaps at the highest rate? This variety is irritating to understand. Surely it would have been possible to have given the same increase as has been given to university tutors and, perhaps, to those people employed by the Atomic Energy Authority, for whom, I see, Lord Hailsham made a better case than has been made for the probation officers.

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer questions on the Government's pay policy except to say that, while it has been a painful operation, it has had a salutary effect on the economy as a whole.

Mr. C. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we have received, I desire to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Miss Bacon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he referred the proposals regarding salary increases contained in the Morison Report to the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Because the proposals raised matters appropriate for consideration by this Committee, which is the established negotiating body for the salaries of probation officers in England and Wales.

Miss Bacon: Does not the Home Secretary realise that it was a waste of the time of the Committee, if he knew in advance that probation officers would get only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send it the Report of the Morison Committee to obtain its opinion upon it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on 10th May he held out hope of a 10 per cent. increase as recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee?

Mr. Butler: It would not have been constitutionally correct if the matter had not been referred. All the reserved rights in relation to arbitration, and so on, would not have been operable had we not referred it.

Miss Bacon: Surely, the Home Secretary is making a mockery of the whole machinery, if he knows in advance that there is to be only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send the Report and ask the Committee to go through all the pro-

cedure and then at the end to say "2½ per cent."

Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the Home Office representative on the Joint Negotiating Committee himself agreed to the recommendation for a 10 per cent. increase?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I would not accept that.

Ice Cream Barrows, Kew

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the nuisance to residents arising from the parking of ice-cream barrows on the corners of residential streets in Kew during the summer; and if he will ensure that appropriate action is taken by the police to curtail such parking in the future.

Mr. Renton: So far as their other commitments allow, the police will continue to take action to prevent any breach of the law.

Mr. Royle: Is my hon. Friend aware that residents in the Lichfield Road area of Kew will welcome his reply, but will he make certain that the police really go all out to stop parking, which is causing such a great nuisance to many people living in the area?

Mr. Renton: If the ice-cream barrows encroach upon the corners of the streets and the roads the police would cause them to move on, but where they are not standing at the corners they cause less obstruction than many of the cars parked in the vicinity.

Sir G. Nicholson: Are we to take it from my hon. and learned Friend's Answer that the prevention of breaches of the law takes a low place in the priority of police duties?

Mr. Renton: No. If my hon. Friend will be so good as to examine my original Answer, he will find that I said that the police will continue to take action to prevent any breach of the law.

Young Persons (Firearms)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for any person under the age of 18 years to have in his possession


in a public place, or on a public highway, a loaded air-rifle, or any other similar firearm, between the period of one hour after sunset and sunrise.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend have another look at this problem? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the restrictions suggested in the Question are very lenient? When will something be done to help the police and the magistrates by imposing a restriction on irresponsible youths who use firearms of this kind? Is the Minister aware that lights at night are not even likely pigeons but are sitting ducks to youths with guns? Will not the Minister do something to prevent them having guns at night time in any event?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member may have overlooked the fact that a Bill restricting the possession of air weapons by young people under the age of 17 in public places received its Third Reading in this House on 4th May and is now in another place.

Sir G. Benson: What reason is there for anybody carrying firearms at any time of the day or night?

Mr. Renton: I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever enjoyed a day's shooting or has ever tried to destroy vermin with firearms. These are two good reasons for carrying them.

Sir G. Benson: But not in public streets.

Drugs (Convictions)

Captain Litchfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act there have been in the Metropolitan Police area during the last three consecutive 12-monthly periods for which figures are available; what were the countries of origin of the persons convicted; and whether he is satisfied that all practicable measures within the control of Her Majesty's Government are being taken to prevent the unauthorised importation of drugs.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, in the Metropolitan Police District

numbered 139 in 1959, 174 in 1960 and 227 in 1961. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the countries of origin of the persons convicted. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that all practicable measures are being taken to prevent unlawful importation.

Captain Litchfield: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply and assure him that I have the utmost admiration for the efforts of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with this vicious traffic, which I think is borne out by the figures. However, may I ask him whether he feels that perhaps greater use might not be made of the powers of deportation in respect of persons coming from overseas who are convicted of drug trafficking?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Certainly, Sir. Of course, hitherto in the case of many persons of origin outside the country there has not been power to deport.

Following is the information:


—
1959
1960
1961


Aden
…
—
—
1


Antigua
…
—
1
—


Bermuda
…
—
—
1


British Guiana
…
2
5
4


Canada
…
2
—
4


Cyprus
…
3
8
16


Dominica
…
1
1
1


Gambia
…
1
1
3


Ghana
…
3
5
5


Gibraltar
…
2
—
—


Hungary

—
—
1


India
…
1
6
4


Irish Republic
…
13
1
8


Jamaica
…
42
52
81


Malta
…
2
6
3


Mauritius
…
—
—
1


New Zealand
…
—
1
—


Nigeria
…
6
5
2


Pakistan
…
1
3
1


Poland
…
—
1
—


Sierra Leone
…
1
—
2


Singapore
…
—
—
1


Spain
…
1
—
—


Tanganyika
…
—
—
2


Trinidad
…
4
4
10


Union of South Africa
…
2
3
—


United Kingdom
…
40
61
69


United States of America
…
—
1
1


In twelve, nine and six cases, respectively, the countries of origin could not be identified.

Sunday Observance

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when


he expects to receive the report on Sunday observance.

Mr. Renton: It is too early to say when this Committee is likely to report.

NEW ZEALAND (LOAN OF PICTURES)

Captain Litchfield: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of New Zealand that the pictures on temporary loan to New Zealand from Admiralty House, which formed part of the Admiralty Collection of William Hodges' pictures of the Second Expedition to the South Seas under Captain Cook, should be permanently retained in New Zealand; and what response he intends to make to this request.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am in communication with the Prime Minister of New Zealand about the pictures to which my hon. Friend refers. Certain proposals are under consideration which I hope will be satisfactory to all those concerned.

Captain Litchfield: I appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulty while this matter is still under discussion with New Zealand, but may I ask him whether he appreciates my own difficulty in wishing to avoid embarrassing him and yet at the same time feeling that it really is time for a reply of substance to be given to this Question, which has now been on the Order Paper for more than eleven weeks and has been deferred six times? It is a Question in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House and persons outside are interested. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can at least give an assurance that he recognises that these pictures, which are national possessions of historic interest and value, should be returned to this country when he returns to 10, Downing Street, in accordance with the terms of the original loan?

The Prime Minister: I regret the delay, but I am awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would think it discourteous of me if I made any statement before I had the reply.

Mr. David James: If I may declare an interest as a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the pictures on loan to New Zealand are not all New Zealand pictures? Only three out of the ten subjects loaned are New Zealand pictures and the balance are at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. Will he bear in mind that possibly the interests of New Zealand, too, would be better served if they would have copies of the New Zealand subjects rather than fragment a unique collection?

The Prime Minister: I would only say now that the temporary loan has, I think, been a great pleasure to New Zealand. The question of the future must, I think, await the reply I hope to receive from the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the deterrent effect of existing nuclear weapons and the fact that nuclear warfare would involve all belligerents and non-belligerents in nuclear destruction, if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not support a policy of indefinitely seeking parity between Communist and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers in the accumulation, improvement and testing of nuclear weapons since even possibly inferior nuclear weapons possessed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are sufficiently deterrent because of their vast explosive potential.

The Prime Minister: The Government's policy is, pending any agreement on properly controlled disarmament, to do whatever is necessary to maintain the effectiveness as a deterrent of the forces of this country and her allies. I accept that "enough is enough", but there are many divergent opinions as to what level of nuclear and other armaments might constitute an effective deterrent. What is certain is that we and our allies could not accept a position in which a series of Russian tests might put us in a dangerously backward position. In the present state of the world therefore


we are compelled in our own interests and those of our allies and friends to watch very carefully all scientific and technical developments to ensure that our forces can really deter.

Mr. Sorensen: While accepting the Prime Minister's statement that enough is enough, and, indeed, not attempting to refute his arguments, may I ask whether he would not at least agree in principle that if sufficient nuclear power already exists to destroy the world there cannot be any point in trying to obtain more nuclear power to destroy the rubble? Surely, in those circumstances, it could be affirmed by Her Majesty's Government that a point might be reached when for no reason of prestige would the Government proceed still to support a policy of indefinitely increasing nuclear power?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; but the object of the tests is really to secure the quality of the deterrent rather than its total quantity, to make sure that anti-missiles and other things cannot be worked out to our detriment.

Mr. Warbey: Does the Prime Minister agree that there can be no hope of achieving a disarmament agreement so long as one side or the other insists upon maintaining its military superiority until the last bayonet is destroyed?

The Prime Minister: That is really the point. For three years we maintained a moratorium. It was then broken. The problem was what we should do. We have tried hard to get an agreement, but we have so far failed. I believe that the House and the country as a whole recognise, however reluctantly, that the only course is to support what the American Government and we decided upon.

CHINA (FAMINE RELIEF)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy and the Prime Minister of Canada that the Western Governments should jointly initiate United Nations action to provide food for the millions in mainland China who are now threatened by famine.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that we all agree that ideological differences ought not to be a barrier to the relief

of hunger. We have no precise information about the extent of the threat of famine in China, but there is certainly a serious food shortage and I have been thinking whether there are any ways in which we might help. But if food is to be got to the Chinese people, with the vast problem of distribution, it can only be with the willing co-operation of the Chinese Government. So far the Chinese Government have made no request for food, and I fear that an unsolicited offer is not likely to benefit the Chinese people.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1922 Dr. Nansen of Norway proposed a League of Nations loan to help the Russians in the famine of that time without a request from the Russians? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that many people think that if that had succeeded the course of history might have been changed? Does not he think that an imaginative act of statesmanship might have the same result today?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, very large quantities of food have been purchased by the Chinese recently from countries with surpluses. Of course, it is the countries of surplus which have to make the largest contribution. Nevertheless, I am considering this in communication with some of our friends.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese Government succeeded in reaching agreement with private firms for the purchase of surplus wheat in America and that our American allies prohibited the fulfilment of that agreement for the reasons hinted at in my right hon. Friend's supplementary question? If that is so, will not the Prime Minister make representations to our American allies to withdraw this prohibition?

The Prime Minister: I am not altogether sure that that would be well received by our friends in Australia and Canada, who have sold very large parts of their surpluses as a result.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the different views of Soviet and Western


scientists, he will discuss with President Kennedy a proposal for the appointment of a committee of independent scientists by the United Nations to investigate and report on the problem of the detection of all nuclear tests.

The Prime Minister: As I explained to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) on 15th May, the Russians have repeatedly ignored suggestions at Geneva that their scientists should meet others to discuss this problem. That being so, I do not think any purpose would be achieved by trying to transfer the problem to the United Nations.

Mr. Henderson: Would not an impartial investigation by a body of neutral scientists of the facts of verification be of the greatest value to public opinion throughout the world, especially in view of the fact that there is direct conflict of views and advice between the scientists of the Soviet Union on the one side and the scientists of the United Kingdom and the United States on the other?

The Prime Minister: While I accept that the opinions of independent scientists might be valuable, the fact remains that it is the scientists of the nuclear Powers who naturally have the greatest and most extensive knowledge of this matter. In the last resort progress depends on reconciling the views of the scientists who advise the Governments of the nuclear Powers, and if we were to exclude them from this work I do not think that this would necessarily lead to what we really want. I wish that we had an agreement by the Russians that our scientists and theirs should meet together, which is what we persuaded the Russians to do three years ago.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the co-operative effort between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government in testing nuclear devices, and the sharing of resulting scientific information, if he will now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not test any more nuclear weapons in Nevada, United States of America.

The Prime Minister: We have no present intention of testing further nuclear devices in Nevada. It would be wrong, however, for me to give any

firm assurance for the future which we cannot foresee.

Mr. Mason: Can I not press the right hon. Gentleman to take this a stage further? If it be true, as he says, that we are receiving full scientific information on all the tests conducted jointly at Christmas Island and elsewhere by the Americans and ourselves, why is it necessary for us to go ahead at any time in the future with an independent series of nuclear tests?

The Prime Minister: Certain weapons are designed in Britain for British purposes, and, although they make use of information received, these devices— whether safety or otherwise— have to be fully tested themselves.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study the article in theWillesden Chronicleby Alan Ereira which I sent to him ten days ago? Is he aware that His Excellency the United States Ambassador is forwarding a copy to the White House? Does not the Prime Minister think that this 17-year-old schoolboy is showing a much greater sense of responsibility about testing than the statesmen of Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: I very much regret that by some error I have not had this article brought to me, but I will see that I read it this evening.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister how many atmospheric nuclear tests have now taken place near Christmas Island; and whether he has yet received an approximate estimate of the damage to human health likely to result from these tests.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is 13, all of which have been reported in the Press. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 8th May and 10th April.

Mr. Driberg: While accepting the Prime Minister's assurances that the fallout which causes the damage to human health is being kept to a minimum in these tests, may I ask him if he realises that the word "minimum" is meaningless unless there is some definition of it and of the number of cases involved?
Does he not yet know whether the number of new cases of bone cancer and leukaemia is likely to be of the order of 10,000, or 100,000, or 1 million, and should this not have some effect on his assent to these tests?

The Prime Minister: No increase has been detected by the Atomic Energy Authority in the incidence of radioactivity in the air attributable to these tests. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Second Report of the Medical Research Council published in 1960, which dealt with this whole question. I would not wish to summarise in a sentence that very carefully balanced Report.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he referred me on a previous occasion to a report of a United Nations Committee in 1958 and that when I looked at it I found that it did essay tentative figures of the kind I had asked for? Why are they not obtainable now?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be possible to obtain them. But I will see if I can make a fuller statement at a later stage. This is a very difficult and complicated matter. It would be wrong to lay downex cathedradecisions on such a subject.

FRANCE

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will put forward in his conversations with President de Gaulle the need for negotiating an agreement on international guarantees for the independence of West Berlin and freedom of access to it, and for thede jurerecognition of the existing Polish frontier with Germany.

The Prime Minister: I cannot give an undertaking to put forward any particular propositions in my talks with President de Gaulle.

Mr. Zilliacus: Could the Prime Minister at any rate make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will not be deterred from entering into negotiations by the refusal of France and Germany to start negotiations or to adopt a give-and-take attitude? Will he further make it clear that in no circumstances shall

we be committed to war by allies who have not come to terms with us on how to make peace?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's deduction is quite false. As I understand it, certain explanatory soundings are being conducted between the American and Soviet Governments. It is true that the French Government were somewhat sceptical as to whether these would lead to practical results. But they have not opposed them. Nor have they been opposed by the German Government.

Dr. King: Since the Polish border cannot be changed except by a third world war, and since a third world war is unthinkable, is it not time that the Western Allies told West Germany that she could make a great contribution to the pacification of Europe by declaring that she has no further territorial interests in changing the Oder-Neisse line?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I agree with the hon. Gentleman if he means that change by force is unthinkable. While a declaration of the nature he suggests might be a useful addition to any wider agreement, I do not think that it would be of any great value to make it without regard to a wider agreement.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from President de Gaulle regarding British support for French foreign policy, or the making available to the French Government of information on how to make nuclear weapons, as a pre-condition for French support for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and what explanation of Her Majesty's Government's policy in this regard he made in reply.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Has not the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the repeated public declarations that it is President de Gaulle's intention to make the increase in nuclear knowledge and support for French foreign policy a condition of France's allowing Britain to enter the Common Market? Will he make it clear that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government be a party to any such bargain?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen any such statement on behalf of the French Government, and I doubt very much the accuracy of such a statement. The two matters are not connected. The hon. Gentleman knows— I reminded the House the other day— the terms on which British nuclear information has been obtained from the American Government.

THAILAND

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will visit Thailand in view of the fact that British troops are now committed to defence of that country.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is adequately informed about Thailand? Is he aware that the country is governed by a corrupt dictatorship and that there is an illiterate population? Does he think it advisable to send British soldiers there in order to maintain a régime like that?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman's statement about Thailand is exaggerated. The point is that we have taken certain steps which had the general approval of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, of a large part of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The reasons were fully debated the other day.

CENTRAL AFRICA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HEALEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will make a statement on his visit to the Central African Federation.

Mr. RUSSELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will make a statement on his visit to Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. BIGGS-DAVISON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will

make a statement about his visit to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and on Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of British Central Africa.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 37, 39 and 40 together.
Yes, Sir. In the course of my visit I had informal discussions with the Governments of the Federation and of the three territories. I also talked with representatives of political parties and other organisations, as well as with many individuals of all races. I have thus been able to obtain for myself a fuller and clearer picture of the political and economic problems in Central Africa and I should like to acknowledge the kindness with which I was received. These problems are difficult and complex, and it would be unwise on the basis of a short tour to attempt to reach final conclusions.
I am, however, happy to tell the House that we have succeeded in reaching a position from which, with the co-operation of all the Governments concerned, more detailed exploratory work can now proceed along the lines which I described to the House in the debate on 8th May.
I then said, and I now intend, that the problems of the area should be approached in a composite way so that the various separate aspects of the future relationship of the territories can be examined together.
I propose to put this work in hand as quickly as possible.

Mr. Healey: Is the Home Secretary aware that we welcome the improvement in the political atmosphere which seems to have followed his visit to the Federation? May I ask him two questions? As he has acknowledged that the Malawi Congress Party has received a firm mandate for its view that Nyasaland should leave the Federation, what position does he propose to take up on this issue when he meets Dr. Banda next month? Secondly, can he say whether Mr. Kenneth Kaunda is now satisfied that Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government and the Northern Rhodesian Government have met the


conditions which he set for participating in the Northern Rhodesian elections next October?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged that, backed by mandate at the election, the Malawi Congress Party is not willing to remain in the Federation. We have stated, and I restate now, that Her Majesty's Government consider that before a final conclusion is reached examination should take place of the effect of the withdrawal and possible future forms of association with the other territories.
In regard to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda's requests, I informed him personally in Lusaka and in a public speech in Salisbury that we considered that the conditions prior to his acceptance of standing in the election could virtually be said to be fulfilled, namely, an independent chairman of the Delimitation Commission and the other matters to which he referred.

Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that at least a strong association is maintained between the two Rhodesias and possibly some economic association between them and Nyasaland, so that all the good work of the last nine years is not completely lost?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The exploratory work which I described to the House on 8th May will have these objectives in mind.
As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I do not propose to call a Federal review conference prior, at any rate, to the Northern Rhodesian elections, but this exploratory work will be designed to see what effective action we can take on the lines of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did my right hon. Friend assure the Governor of Northern Rhodesia of the full support of Her Majesty's Government in using all the forces of law and order to protect peaceable people of all races from violence, intimidation and political terror? Whatever the result of the elections in Northern Rhodesia, will Her Majesty's Government continue to discharge their constitutional authority and their responsibility for peace and order?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I took more than one opportunity of stressing not only with the Government of Northern Rhodesia, but with the other Governments concerned, the importance of countering intimidation. It is Her Majesty's Government's desire that the elections in Northern Rhodesia and elsewhere should be held without intimidation and in a peaceful way.
The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Bellenger: Was the right hon. Gentleman able to discuss with Dr. Banda the economic consequences of secession from the Federation, as Nyasaland is at present receiving substantial subsidies from the Federation to keep it going?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I discussed this with Dr. Banda and we considered together the fact that only a proportion of the budget of Nyasaland is covered by revenue raised in the territory itself. I must also say that at present the chief interest of the Malawi Ministers is concentrated on their constitutional future, but I was able to have very frank discussions with them about their economic future.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: During my right hon. Friend's very successful tour of the Rhodesias, reports arrived in this country to the effect that Dr. Banda had made an absolute demand for secession and that my right hon. Friend had accommodated him to the extent of conceding the principle. I was not quite sure from his answers whether that was the case.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The position is as I stated it personally to Dr. Banda and in the House on 8th May and at a Press conference at Zomba, namely, that before any final conclusion is reached, the examination to which I referred must take place.

Mr. Healey: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that nothing he has just said detracts from the force of the declaration made by Her Majesty's Government's representatives at the United Nations, namely, that no steps would be taken concerning the future of the Federation without the agreement of


the majority of the inhabitants— not the electorate— of all the territories concerned?

Mr. Butler: I stated in a series of speeches while I was in the Federation that we should not proceed without general consent, without which no lasting settlement could be reached.

Mr. Berkeley: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the personal success of his visit, may I ask him whether, since he agrees that any possible future association between these three territories must be based upon general consent, he would not also agree that the possibility of economic association between these territories, which we all hope to see, might be facilitated by an earlier declaration of the right of each territory to secede if it so desires? Will it not be very difficult to refuse this right in view of what has happened in the Federation of the West Indies?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government, as I explained in the debate on 8th May, cannot go as far as that at the present time. We are engaged in this work, which will be extremely laborious and difficult, and I cannot take the matter as far as my hon. Friend would wish.

Mr. Stonehouse: Did the Home Secretary tell Sir Roy Welensky and confirm to him the statement made by the Lord Chancellor to the effect that any constitutional change in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was completely the responsibility of the United Kingdom, and, if so, did Sir Roy Welensky accept that fact?

Mr. Butler: As can be imagined, protracted argument on this subject took place. I sustained the view of Her Majesty's Government and Sir Roy Welensky sustained his own view and that of the Federal Government. Up to date, we are leaving it that Her Majesty's Government accept what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. fain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 4TH JUNE— Debate on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper on Hospital Plans for England and Wales and Scotland (Command Nos. 1604 and 1602).

Motion on the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order.

TUESDAY, 5TH JUNE— It is hoped to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 6TH JUNE, and THURSDAY, 7TH JUNE— A debate will take place on the Common Market.

For this two-day debate the Government are giving one day and the Opposition are allotting a Supply Day.

FRIDAY, 8TH JUNE— It Will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whit-sun Adjournment until Tuesday, 26th June.

Mr. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House how the Government propose to handle the business for Wednesday and Thursday? Will the Lord Privy Seal open the debate with a full statement, and does the Prime Minister intend to be available to take part in the debate?

Mr. Macleod: The Lord Privy Seal will open the debate. In reply to a question last week I said that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would also probably take part at an appropriate stage in the two-day debate, but the full team of Government speakers has not yet been finalised.

Mr. Brown: Will the Prime Minister hold himself available to take part in this debate?

Mr. Macleod: I would not like to commit the Prime Minister on that matter. Perhaps I can put to him the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Can the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to make a statement on the cotton industry?

Mr. Macleod: I hope in the first clay or so of next week.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that by an enormous overwhelming majority the Committee of Supply decided last Thursday to report Progress and ask leave to sit again? Can he say whether this leave has actually been sought, and, if so, whether it has been granted, and on What day the debate will be resumed?
Moreover, wild the Leader of the House bear in mind that later the same day, no doubt by the merest inadvertence, the Minister replying to the debate rather over-reached himself and talked out the debate so that it was never concluded? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what plan the Government can offer for the conclusion of that debate, too?

Mr. Macleod: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman and I suffer from the same disability. So far as Supply is concerned, neither of us is the leader of the official Opposition.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Motion on the Notice Paper, dealing with the Repudiation of Clause Four?

[That this House, while warmly commending the Leader of the Opposition for excluding Imperial Chemical Industries from the threat of nationalisation if and when another Labour Government is elected, urges him, with the united support of his party, now to specify what other industries are to be exempt from future nationalisation under the terms of Clause IV of the Labour Party's Constitution.]

Can he say whether, even in the crowded programme for next week, he can find time for a debate to allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond to our courteous invitation to him to clarify the present position of his party about the future operation of Clause Four of their Constitution?

Mr. Macleod: Obviously, this is a splendid occasion for one of the traditional answers that one gives, that this would be a peculiarly proper subject for a Supply day if the Opposition agreed to it.

Mr. Wade: Is it intended that there should be a vote at the conclusion of the debate on the Common Market?

Mr. Macleod: That is not for me to say. It may be convenient for the House if I state the form which the debate will follow. On the first day a schedule of Votes will be put down. On the second day, which is Government time, the debate will be continued on a Motion for the Adjournment. Whether a vote takes place on that is for the House to decide.

Mr. Leather: On the important Common Market debate, can we have an assurance that the minimum amount of time will be monopolised by Front Bench speakers on both sides, and that we shall have a chance to really express a view?

Mr. Macleod: We are having a two-day debate which should give a full opportunity for a considerable number of hon. Members to speak. I am sure that the House wants from the Lord Privy Seal a full, clear, and detailed statement of the progress of the negotiations so far, and with that we shall initiate the debate.

Dr. King: May I remind the Leader of the House of the all-party Motion on the Order Paper, signed by over 120 Members, on public service pensioners, and also remind him that last Friday we were unable to discuss the broad issue of public service pensioners on the excellent Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Will he give serious consideration to giving us an apportunity to discuss this other Motion soon after we return from the Whitsun Recess?
[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the two do march, and always have done, closely together. Although it could not come into the debate last Friday, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find some comfort in the sympathetic answer given from the Treasury Bench to last Friday's Motion.

Mr. P. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that normally by this time


of the year we have had a debate on the Agricultural Price Review? Is it not strange that this year, on the occasion of this particularly controversial Review, Opposition time is not being made available to discuss it? Will he ensure that we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible after the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot guarantee that it will take place in Government time. It is a Supply Motion which could be taken in Opposition time.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply? The Price Review was an act of Government policy. It has never been the practice, nor, indeed, the constitutional arrangement, for the Opposition to provide time to debate Government action. This has always been done in Government time. Why should not it be done this year?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not agree. If the Opposition wish to criticise particular acts of Government policy, opportunities to do that are available on Supply days.

Mr. Hoy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the new Clause—Exemption from excise duty of Scottish shale oil— which we suggested should be included in the Finance Bill, but which, unfortunately, was not selected for discussion by the Chairman of Ways and Means? May I renew my request to the right hon. Gentleman to give us time to discuss briefly the future of this old-established Scottish industry?

Mr. Macleod: There is still the Report stage of the Finance Bill. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must not be taken as holding out the possibility of providing Government time to discuss the matter.

Mr. Kershaw: With regard to last Friday's debate on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), if my right hon. Friend describes the reply from the Treasury Bench as sympathetic, would he care to give me an idea of what would be an unsympathetic reply?

Mr. Speaker: Not on business questions.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point, Although the Government's reply on Friday was not, in my view, particularly sympathetic, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government spokesman did not divide the House against the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? The Motion was, therefore, carried and becomes the view of the House— including, presumably, those members of the Government who were present and did not vote against it. Can we take it, therefore, that the Government will take early action to implement the terms of that Motion?

Mr. Macleod: That is precisely the reason why I described the reply by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary as sympathetic He accepted the Motion.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), which was agreed to by the House without a Division, it was made quite clear that the Government accepted that at the time of the General Election a pledge was given that all pensioners should participate in the good fortune that has come to the country? Now that that has been accepted and established, may I ask why it has taken nearly three years to keep that pledge?

Mr. Macleod: With respect to my hon. Friend, the point that she is raising relates to last week's business and not next week's, but if one looks at the five pensions Bills which the Government have introduced on this subject, they show that the Government have an honourable record. That the Government intend to carry out and maintain.

Dame Irene Ward: I said before the last General Election.

Mr. Warbey: I wish to raise with the Leader of the House an important point in connection with the business for next Tuesday, when, according to the information given to us, we are to discuss again the Finance Bill in Committee. I, and a number of other hon. Members, have important Amendments down to the Finance Bill which are appointed for discussion on that day. At the same time in the afternoon, from four o'clock onwards, Standing Committee B will be meeting for further discussion on the


Pipe-lines Bill on which I and other hon. Members have important Amendments which we wish to discuss.
This is the third time on which this has happened. On the first occasion Standing Committee B sat until 7 p.m. Last Tuesday, it went on sitting until 11.30 p.m., and we were warned by the Minister— or perhaps I should say threatened— that next Tuesday we shall be expected to sit even later. This involves a really intolerable clash in the duties imposed on hon. Members. It is literally impossible for us to be in two places at the same time. Not only do we desire to take part in the debates in both Committees, but we wish also to move Amendments in both Committees.
Fortunately, there is a provision in our Standing Orders which would enable us partially to overcome this difficulty. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will give notice under Standing Order No. 10 to move the Adjournment of the House next Tuesday?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I understand the point made by the hon. Member, but it is inevitable, particularly at a time like this, at this time of the year— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]— when business is crowded, that there should be a clash. I have no intention of invoking the powers of Standing Order No. 10, which were, in fact, re-enacted in 1947 and, I think, have never been used.

Mr. Tapsell: May I revert to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett)? In view of the recent action of the Leader of the Opposition in repudiating his party's constitution in so far as it applies to the chemical industry, would it not be very much in the national interest that all the great industries threatened by nationalisation in the event of another Labour Government should have the opportunity to know exactly what is their position as a result of a general debate on nationalisation?

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the objections made from both sides of the House and at open air meetings throughout the country to the Government's objectionable, iniquitous and uneconomic proposals——

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did not

you, in your wisdom, reproach me some time ago for using too many adjectives? What about the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)? His question was full of epithets.

Mr. Speaker: I did not reproach the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I ruled that his question was out of order because it was too thick with epithets. So, also, was the question of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I should like the House to get on with business.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I now, after that silly and irrelevant interruption, renew my sentence, Mr. Speaker? My sentence is a request to the Leader of the House, in view of what I said, to find time next week for a debate on the very urgent subject of grants and loans to foreign shipyards which are calculated to deprive British workers of employment.

Mr. Macleod: It is good to see the hon. and learned Gentleman back in his old form.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Hear, hear.

Mr. Macleod: Obviously, there is no opportunity for this next week. But I think that there may be an opportunity for the House after the Whitsun Recess, perhaps in July, because affirmative Orders will then come before the House. In that case there may be— there would be— an opportunity in July for this matter to be discussed.

Mr. G. Brown: May I revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) about the sittings of Standing Committee B which is discussing the Pipe-Lines Bill? Does not it strike the Leader of the House that it is quite intolerable that a Standing Committee should be sitting for long hours when important business like the Finance Bill is being discussed in this Chamber? Without any desire to hold up the progress of the Pipe-Lines Bill, or to be unduly difficult, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will give further consideration to this matter and try to arrange that the proceedings of the Standing Committee are conducted at more reasonable hours than have been suggested?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that this complaint has been raised about many forms of business before the House, and not only the Finance Bill. It could be raised whatever the business for Tuesday, 5th June may be. I was asked a specific question, whether I was prepared to invoke Standing Order No. 10, and I said, "No".

Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it might be possible to make faster progress in Standing Committee B if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) excused himself from attending that Committee next Tuesday afternoon?

Mr. Brown: If all hon. Members were absent all the business could be disposed of without discussion.

Mr. Ross: The Leader of the House has said that this has happened in relation to other Bills apart from the Finance Bill. Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Finance Bill is something rather special, that it is one Bill that cannot be discussed in a Standing Committee, but must be taken in this Chamber to allow for the full participation of every hon. Member? Is not this the one Bill which should not under those circumstances, and from the point of view of constitutional propriety, be affected?

Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member will study the precedents— there is one only a few weeks old— he will realise that exactly the same argument was produced about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which clashed with the proceedings of a Standing Committee. The argument could be produced in connection with any business.

Mr. Jay: What is the special reason why, at present, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is impossible for the Government to ensure that next week hon. Members have sufficient time to do their duty both in the Standing Committee and in this Chamber?

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is nothing like as difficult as all that. It is quite possible, if he wishes, for an hon. Member to move his Amendment in this Chamber.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Leader of the House aware that every time we

have had a major debate on the Common Market the Government have treated the House nonchalantly, as they did over the movement of military forces, and have not given hon. Members information? Could not we have a White Paper on the progress of the negotiations stating what has been done and what has not been done, so that the debate may be constructive? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we did not even have a copy of the Treaty of Rome when the first debate was held?

Mr. Macleod: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Member has said:

Mr. S. Silverman: May I, for purely practical purposes, revert to the question which I put to the Leader of the House a few minutes ago, and of which he answered only half? While conceding the disability from which he said that both of us suffered and assuring him there is every prospect of that disability being cured in his case quicker than in mine, may I remind him of the second part of my question about the Adjournment debate, from which obviously the Government had full responsibility?
There is a widespread impression, shared as we know by the Prime Minister, that the debate was on that occasion concluded. Will not he give us an opportunity to conclude it? If he cannot do that, will he at least assure us that he will take every care to see that the speaker winding up for the Government at the end of the debate on the Common Market does not overstep his time in such a way as to deprive the House from reaching a decision on the Motion if it wishes to do so? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last Thursday a Government spokesman talked out the Motion for the Adjournment. I am asking for an assurance that he will not do so on the occasion of the debate on the Common Market on the Motion for the adjournment.

Mr. Macleod: With respect to the hon. Member, I think that he will agree, on looking back to the last occasion— this is very rare for him— that he was caught napping—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he was. At one minute to ten o'clock he could have asked for the Closure, in which case there would have been such a Division. The hon.


Member was not awake on that occasion. It is something which is very rare, but that is what happened.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is completely mistaken? I was fully aware of what was happening, but if the Government were so afraid for their case that they did not want a decision of the House in their favour, it was no business of mine to come to their rescue.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member had better consult HANSARD. He will then find that at two minutes past ten o'clock he awoke to what was happening, but that it was too late.

Mr. M. Foot: As the Leader of the House appears to be so well equipped with these precedents, will he tell us which was the last occasion when, in similar circumstances, the Government talked out their own Motion?

Mr. Macleod: We do this regularly.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silvermanrose——

Mr. Speaker: I must ask if the hon. Member has a new question to ask. I think that we ought to get on with business.

Mr. Silverman: This is a serious point, Sir. I should like your permission to put it to the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has said now, what he did not say before, that the business of talking out Government Motions by their own spokesmen is a regular habit of the present Government. That reinforces the importance of my question to him in asking that he should give an assurance that that will not happen next Tuesday.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. In the Standing Orders we have Standing Order No. 10, which provides facilities for the Adjournment of the House to facilitate the business of Standing Committees in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have been described this afternoon. The Standing Order provides that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House may be made only after notice given by a Minister of the Crown, which means, unfortunately, that no one but the Minister of the Crown may invoke this Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: Does it not also result in it not being a point of order?

Mr. Warbey: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker.
With great respect, I was about to ask whether, in view of the fact that this Standing Order may be invoked only by a Minister of the Crown, you can tell me what procedure I should follow to challenge the arrogant refusal of the Minister to apply this Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order for the Chair, manifestly, on the terms of the Standing Order.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the progress of the Brussels negotiations. I again intend to publish a more detailed account of the latest developments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
On 16th May I said that the last ministerial meeting marked the end of the first stage: the way was open for the negotiation of solutions. The House will understand, of course, that any agreement on the solution of individual elements in the negotiations remains subject to overall agreement. The momentum has been maintained both in the meetings of the deputies of Ministers and in the ministerial meeting which ended in Brussels yesterday.
At this meeting agreement was reached on the tariff treatment to be applied to our imports of industrial products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As regards these commodities, I said in my opening statement in Paris on 10th October that we recognised that indefinite and unlimited continuation of free entry over the whole of this field might not be regarded as compatible with the development of Common Market.
The solution now worked out provides that the common external tariff will not be applied to these imports in accordance with the normal timetable, but in


three stages: the first stage on accession, the second stage on 1st January, 1967, and the third stage on 1st January, 1970.
The European Economic Community at one time proposed that this delayed application of the tariff should relate only to a limited list of goods, but it is now agreed that all industrial exports are included. It was agreed that the Community would be ready to take part in multilateral negotiations aimed at reducing, on a reciprocal basis, the level of the common tariff on industrial products.
The agreement also provides for consultation between the enlarged European Community and Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1966 and 1969, after which appropriate steps would be taken in the light of all the circumstances in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty.
Ministers carried a stage further the discussion of the most important and extremely difficult question of the treatment of imports of temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth, both during the transitional period and in the long-term. In this connection, I have put forward certain proposals on cereals which will be discussed by Ministers' deputies next week.
The Ministers had a long discussion of the list of products, mostly industrial raw materials, on which we have asked for a nil tariff. In some cases the Community has suggested alternative arrangements to meet the essential needs of ourselves and our suppliers. Deputies have been asked to examine these alternative proposals together with our own with a view to submitting solutions to Ministers at their next meeting.
I have made comprehensive proposals for dealing with the exports of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and emphasised to Ministers the importance of making arrangements to protect the essential export interests of these countries. The Government of India have also circulated a memorandum to the Six Governments. Our proposals, together with the memorandum of the Government of India, will be examined further by the deputies.
Ministers also had before them a report by a Working Party on the prob-

lems of British horticulture. The deputies will examine it in greater detail taking account of individual commodities.
Finally, I made a report on the discussions which have been taking place between our delegation and the Commission on the provisions of the Treaty of Rome concerned with economic union. I was able to tell the Ministers that these discussions have satisfied us that on the most important matters dealt with in these Articles we can accept the Treaty subject to a small number of adjustments on timing and administration.
The next meeting of Ministers will be for four days, 27th to 30th June.

Mr. G. Brown: This very important statement will inevitably be very much a part of the debate which we shall have next week.
Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that parts of the statement seem so involved as to be almost meaningless? For example, there is the reference to the consultations which will take place between the enlarged European Community, as he called it, and Australia, Canada and New Zealand, in 1966 and 1969, leading to appropriate steps "in the light of all the circumstances and in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty." That hardly seems to have a real meaning at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will develop exactly what is envisaged there.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is it still understood that all the arrangements we are coming to with the Community will be subject to the general approval of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference before any final decisions are taken?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I tried to make plain, in the first part of my statement, that as we are dealing with a number of different sectors in these negotiations we work out solutions which come to fruition at different times, and we hope to find agreement on each of them. At the last Ministerial meeting we found agreement on this particular sector concerned with Commonwealth industrial products. This will form part of the outline of a settlement generally agreed among the seven Governments which we shall try to obtain before the end


of July so that it can be placed before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in September.
All the undertakings that we have given to the House and the Resolution of last August remain—that no agreement can be signed until it has been debated by this House in accordance with the terms of the Resolution. I think that that position is absolutely plain.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the approval of the Commonwealth. It has always been clearly stated that the Commonwealth countries themselves fully recognise, and this has been repeatedly stated, that the final decision must rest with the United Kingdom Government.
On the particular point that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, each of these sentences in the statement means a very great deal. Full consultation between the three Commonwealth countries and the enlarged European Economic Community in both 1966 and 1969, in each case before the stage of the application of part of the common tariff, is of the greatest importance for these three Commonwealth countries.
On the last point, about appropriate action, I cannot be more specific about the type of action to be taken for the simple reason that it is impossible for anyone now to foresee what the circumstances of 1970 will be, nor what action will be appropriate in 1970.

Mr. Brown: While wholly understanding that the final decision rests with the United Kingdom, may I press the right hon. Gentleman again that, before a final decision is taken, we shall be told whether or not the agreement which we propose to accept has received the general approval of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth? The right hon. Gentleman must be quite clearly aware that if it did not receive the general approval of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, that would very gravely affect the attitude of this House towards it.

Mr. Heath: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be able to express their own views fully at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, publicly in this country and in their own Parliaments and countries. There will

be absolutely no doubt about that at all. The House will be fully aware of their views when it comes to making the decision.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to abandon the Commonwealth preference is a matter affecting the bilateral agreements between ourselves and our Commonwealth partners? Before that decision was made, were our Commonwealth partners consulted? Did we obtain their approval for us to end these agreements at the date stated in the agreements?

Mr. Heath: This is not the abandonment of Commonwealth preferences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a solution dealing with a particular part of these negotiations, and it is not the solution which is applicable to other parts of Commonwealth trade, necessarily, nor is it being worked out in these other sectors. It applies to this particular sector.
From the point of view of consultations with the Commonwealth, the proposals which eventually led to this solution were first put to the three Commonwealth countries several months ago. I discussed them myself with Canada when I was there on a visit to Ottawa, and they have been fully discussed with other Commonwealth countries.
I am not in a position to state what is the detailed attitude of each country towards these proposals. We have always put the proposals to them at each stage, and we have received their comments on them. We have made changes where we thought it was right so to do, and that is our responsibility. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) can be quiet at least for a few minutes and listen to what is being said.
When it came to the last stage of these negotiations, the Commonwealth was informed, immediately before I took part in the discussions in Brussels, about the room in which I was prepared to negotiate. The negotiations finished at 6.35 p.m. on Tuesday, and I met the Ambassadors of the three Commonwealth countries at 7 p.m., when I gave them a full account of these negotiations, and exactly what the solution


was that we had arrived at. There has been the fullest consultation with the three Commonwealth countries on this sector, as, indeed, on every other.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman has reached this week involves not only the abolition of Commonwealth Preference on all manufactured goods from all white countries of the Commonwealth, hut also the substitution of a European preference against the Commonwealth countries by 1970? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this surrender of Commonwealth preference will not be treated as a precedent for the treatment of other Commonwealth interests, and that, on the contrary, this agreement will depend upon the Common Market countries agreeing to what the right hon. Gentleman called "comparable outlets in an enlarged Common Market", for all the agricultural products of the Commonwealth countries, and cheap manufactures from Asia?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to deny reports published widely in the British Press today that Her Majesty's Government have made a proposal for the treatment of cheap manufactures from Asia which does not allow for an increase in the imports of Asian manufactures to Europe as a whole over the future years, in view of the fact that an increase in Asian exports to Europe is a pre-condition for the success of the development plans in all the Asian countries of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Heath: I have told the House repeatedly that each of the different sectors I have described to the House— the temperate foodstuffs, the products of Asian countries, the tropical products of our African and West Indian members of the Commonwealth, and so on— has to have a separate solution to be put forward for them, and I have described the nature of these solutions on each occasion. None of them is of the same type as those I have described this afternoon, because each group is separate and requires a separate method of treatment.
So far as the Asian countries are concerned— India, Pakistan and Ceylon, which are the three Asian countries— I have told the members of the Six of the

importance of this trade to these Asian countries, and that a rate of growth is required to be allowed for. As I have already told the House, the Ministers have accepted the balancing principle that damage should not be caused to the exports of these countries, and that if damage is later seen to be caused remedial action should be taken.

Mr. D. Walker-Smith: Although my right hon. Friend has said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that the agreement in respect of manufactured goods does not represent the abandonment of Commonwealth preference, is it not obviously a very serious invasion of that principle? Is it not equally obvious that the Community will be encouraged to apply the same principle in regard to other products in general, and to temperate foodstuffs in particular? Will he therefore, for the avoidance of doubt hereafter, affirm the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to regard as satisfactory any conditions of entry which involve, wholly or substantially, the abrogation of Commonwealth preference?

Mr. Heath: There are bound to be changes in Commonwealth preferences, because we have to reconcile the Commonwealth trading position with the Customs Union which forms the Common Market. Therefore, there are bound to be changes. The simple fact, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows full well, is that Commonwealth preferences have been changing a great deal over the last few years. They changed a few months ago as a result of an agreement between the United States and the Economic Community, which was translated, through the "most-favoured-nation" treatment, to Canada, and, therefore, our own Commonwealth preferences were affected.
These matters are changing the whole time, and will have to be taken into account in the other solutions which we are trying to reach in the other sectors which I have already described to the House.

Mr. Wade: The Lord Privy Seal has stated that he is dealing only with a particular sector. Has he any progress to report on the political implications of accepting the Treaty of Rome? When he uses these important words, "We can


accept the Treaty subject to a small number of adjustments of timing and administration", is he referring to the provisions of the Treaty concerned with economic unity, or to the Treaty as a whole?

Mr. Heath: I was referring to the Treaty as a whole, because a very large part of it concerns economic union provisions and the remainder deals with the common tariff and the common agricultural policy. The political discussions to which the hon. Member refers are not taking place in Brussels and are not part of the negotiations on the Treaty of Rome. There have been no further developments in that sphere since the meeting of the Ministers of the six Governments of 17th April.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that to me his statement is particularly disturbing, because he told me from that Treasury Bench that these industrial imports from the Commonwealth countries were not expendable? Have I got it wrong? Has the Lord Privy Seal made the offer to bring to an end over a term of years preferences for Canada, Australia and New Zealand in this sector without having a firm assurance from the European Economic Community that comparable opportunities will be found for those industrial exports in Europe?

Mr. Heath: We have put forward our solutions for dealing with temperate foodstuffs and these concern a very great part of Commonwealth trade. All these solutions will have to be considered in the final outline together. They must all be taken together, and weighed up together to see whether they provide a satisfactory solution to the problems which would be involved in our membership of the European Economic Community.
Many people in the Commonwealth countries will regard a period of transition of this length for a change-over from the present system to what is involved in the future as giving a considerable number of years in which changes can take place. They are being carried through in three stages over this period up to 1970. This does not mean that these industrial goods are expendable. A very careful analysis has been made of the prospects of these goods item by

item in trading arrangements. The importance of the sentence in my statement about negotiations is the undertaking of the Community, which they have expressed previously in a more general form, about taking part in negotiations which are coming to be known as the Kennedy Round, if the President is able to carry his legislation through Congress. Those negotiations, covering the industrial products of the Western free world, would be of the greatest importance for the economies of all Atlantic countries.

Mr. Bellenger: I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal a general question as to the method of debating these matters. He has told the House that he has already settled, in part, problems which will have to be discussed at some time in debate. Next week we have two days to debate— I do not know what; probably the general issues. But, obviously, what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon is bound to come prominently into the picture.
My question to him is, therefore, this: would it not be better for the House to have a complete picture, because we have to weigh against one item of concessions perhaps another of item of advantage to this country? Does he intend not to give the House a complete statement on the negotiations before the House rises for the Summer Recess, but, instead, to leave it until he and his right hon. Friends have consulted the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and then, late in the autumn, to discuss the whole question whether we go into the Common Market, with the various pros and cons?

Mr. Heath: During the debate next week I will do my utmost to give the House the fullest information I can about the stage which we have reached in the negotiations over the whole front, commensurate with the fact that in those places where we have not yet reached solutions there is a great deal of confidential information between the two sides and between ourselves and the Commonwealth Governments which I am not at liberty to divulge to the House. The question of future debates is one for the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to arrange, and it will obviously depend upon the timing of when we are able to reach solutions, if we are, over the whole front, so that the


whole House can see the whole picture, as and when it is in a position to have a debate.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that we cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, apart from questions by Privy Councillors on this side of the House, not a single back bench Member on this side has been called to ask a Question? In view of the importance of the subject, may I ask whether a question may be put?

Mr. Speaker: I am of the opinion that it may not. It is no kind of snobbery on the part of the Chair which has resulted in this happening. I think that I worked round the parties.

Sir M. Lindsay: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet.
Clearly, we cannot debate a great, wide subject like this wholly irregularly and without a Question before the House. The House charges me with the admittedly difficult responsibility of deciding when we ought to stop this kind of irregularity.

Sir M. Lindsay: On a point of order. I know that it is difficult, Mr. Speaker, but all the questions from this side of the House have been from persistent anti-Common Market questioners who do not represent this country at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I should have said that they do not represent the majority point of view in the country. Would it not be possible to have a few questions, for example, from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), or others who take a different point of view?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members do not wear for my benefit little flags or badges indicating precisely what their views are, nor, indeed, are questions necessarily the right method for asserting views but rather for a further extracting of information or requiring action. I ask the House to take a sensible view. We ought to get on now.

Mr. Stonehouse: Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that reference has been made to the opinions of hon. Members opposite, could it not be pointed out that the majority of back bench Members on this side of the House regard the Lord Privy Seal's statement as a monstrous thing?

Mr. Speaker: That is manifestly an abuse of rising to a point of order.

Following is the detailed account:

REPORT OF PROGRESS OF BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS

Since my last report on the Brussels negotiations on 17th May, meetings of the Ministers' deputies and of working parties have continued. On 29th and 30th May there were meetings of Ministers at which we reviewed the progress made during the past fortnight and continued the process of seeking to negotiate solutions.

The present position with regard to the various problems under discussion is as follows:

Raw Materials and Semi-Manufactures for which we have proposed a zero tariff

This subject has been discussed in some detail by the deputies and we had a further useful examination of the problems involved at our Ministerial meeting on 29th May. We still consider, and have re-emphasised, that the most appropriate solution for each of the products on our list would be the reduction of the common tariff to nil. The Six find particular difficulty in meeting us on some products, but are not yet ready to put forward any alternative proposal. On some other products they have put forward proposals which are to be discussed by the deputies.

Industrial Products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Ministers agreed on the following arrangements:

(1) The United Kingdom would take the first step (30 per cent.) towards the application of the common customs tariff to imports of these products on the date of its accession to the Community. The United Kingdom would take a second step (30 per cent.) towards applying the common customs tariff on 1st January, 1967. The United Kingdom would apply the full common customs tariff to all the products concerned on 1st January, 1970.

(2) Note would be taken of the readiness of the Community to take part in multilateral negotiations aimed at reducing, on a reciprocal basis, customs duties on industrial products.

(3) The enlarged Community would be prepared to examine, in 1966 and 1969, in consultation with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the development of its trade with these countries, after which it would take appropriate steps in the light of all the circumstances, and in conformity watt the provisions of the Treaty.

India, Pakistan and Ceylon Exports

I made comprehensive proposals dealing with the exports of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and emphasised to Ministers the importance of making arrangements adequate to protect the essential export interests of these countries. Ministers asked deputies to examine these problems further, taking into account our own proposals and a memorandum communicated to the Governments of the Six by the Government of India. The deputies have been asked to propose solutions for consideration at the next meeting of Ministers.

Association and Tropical Products

Deputies will revert to these subjects at their June meetings. Meanwhile, we have put for. ward precise proposals regarding the tariff treatment of the various tropical products. The Six have not yet put forward proposals of their own or commented on ours, but hope to do so shortly. Meanwhile, a Working Party has submitted a report analysing the trade in a number of these products and the problems which arise and is continuing to work on further products.

Commonwealth Temperate Foodstuffs

Since the last ministerial meeting deputies have been considering our proposals for safeguarding essential Commonwealth interests in this field. We had a further discussion at the ministerial meeting and the Six emphasised their view that the arrangements made would need to be consistent with the Treaty and the common agricultural and common commercial policies. The deputies will resume their examination of this subject next week, and will consider the proposals which I have submitted for arrangements for imports of cereals from Commonwealth countries.

Horticulture

During the period under review a Working Party has been examining the problems of British horticulture and has prepared an interim report which the deputies discussed and submitted to Ministers. The report set out our view of the problems and how we thought they might be handled, together with the views of the Six. We agreed that the deputies should examine the problems in greater detail, taking account of individual commodities, and should suggest possible solutions.

Economic Union

I made a report on the discussions which have been taking place between our delegation and the Commission on the provisions of the Treaty of Rome concerned with economic union. I was able to tell the Ministers that these discussions have satisfied us that on the most important matters dealt with in these Articles we can accept the Treaty, subject to a small number of adjustments on timing and administration.

Orders of the Day — JAMAICA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. In the words of the Preamble, it is to
make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Jamaica of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth.
I have no doubt that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the attainment by Jamaica of independence and will welcome the unanimous desire of all parties in Jamaica to remain within the Commonwealth.
It is some 300 years or more since the first relations between this country and Jamaica were established, and I believe that the first Jamaica Constitution was established exactly 300 years ago. At that time the population of the island was about 3,000, and I believe that piracy was one of the main and most popular occupations. Since then we have seen a development of the island to a great population and considerable economic potential. There was the introduction of the sugar industry with the difficulties which followed in the 19th century, succeeded by coffee production, and now in Jamaica they have not merely the basic products of coffee and sugar but bauxite on a very large scale, industrial development and the latest and very encouraging development of a substantial tourist trade.
I feel that we can therefore feel that Jamaica will start her career as an independent nation with considerable economic resources and in many ways I would say stronger economically than a number of countries already enjoying their independence. Of course we all know that many economic and social


problems remain. In particular the unemployment problem is serious. But the basic economy of Jamaica is strong and the prospects of development can be considerable. Hon. Members will also recognise the political maturity of the people of Jamaica which, along with economic strength, is so important to sound development of a new independent nation.
The people of the island are lucky in having Sir Alexander Bustamante and Mr. Manley, two outstanding political figures who add colour and freshness of ideas to the political scene in the Caribbean. They, in turn, are fortunate in having in Jamaica a Civil Service of very high quality indeed, to which we should pay tribute on this occasion and to which British civil servants over the years have made a very considerable contribution. There is in Jamaica a degree of political maturity and political stability and an absence of racial tension which may well be envied by many other territories in this part of the world.
Perhaps the best proof of political maturity in Jamaica was the success of the recent Conference at which we decided upon the Constitution for, and the date of, independence. Because the two main parties before the Conference had voluntarily come to such a very wide measure of agreement amongst themselves, the Conference was able to proceed very quickly to complete agreement.
So we have this Bill today to provide for the independence of Jamaica. It is in the form of a number of independence Bills which have been before the House this year and in recent years. It will be succeeded by many others. All these Bills are the best answer to those who in some parts of the world seem to think that we in this country need to be taught the fundamental principles of democracy and individual freedom. Over a period we have constantly brought forward and are bringing forward our dependent Territories to full self-government and independence within the British Commonwealth of nations.
The Bill is a very brief one. I do not think that I need go into any detail about it. Clause 1 provides for fully responsible status for Jamaica. Clause 2 deals with the citizenship question on

the lines already embodied in several previous independence Bills. There is one particular point only to which I would call the attention of the House. That is the position of the Caymans, the Turks and the Caicos. These islands have been largely linked with Jamaica. With the impending independence of Jamaica we asked them what they would like to do in future. After considerable public debate, in both cases they decided that they wished to remain Colonies of the British Crown. We naturally acceded to that request. I would only add that I am sure that the help that the Government of Jamaica have generously given to the Caymans, the Turks and the Caicos wild continue in the future as it has in the past, even though that constitutional link has been severed with the independence of Jamaica.
It only remains for me to express, as I am sure I can on behalf of the House as a whole, a tribute to all, both in Jamaica and from this country, who have played a part in bringing the islands to the stage of launching upon independence with such considerable confidence and with such high hopes for the future, and to wish to the leaders and people of Jamaica every possible success and prosperity.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: This is, as the Colonial Secretary has just said, one more independence Bill which comes before the House. With it we say "farewell" to one more Colony and "welcome" to one more member of the Commonwealth. There is a special background to this Bill. It is in some respects an unhappy background. I refer to the breakdown of the West Indies Federation. We certainly do not on this occasion wish to go over all that very unhappy story. All I would say about it is that we hope and believe that Jamaica, while not cutting herself off from this country and the Commonwealth, will also not cut herself off from the rest of the West Indies and that she will continue to give help to members in all other parts of the West Indies which are not so highly developed as she is. In a sense, we hope that she will play the same role in the future in regard to the smaller islands of the West Indies as we play in regard to her. She should be a local leader in the area.
I turn to the prospects for Jamaica. She has, like all these newly independent territories, her problems and her assets. The Colonial Secretary mentioned that when the British first came to Jamaica she had a population of only about 3,000. Her economists may look back with some nostalgia to that time, because today her gravest problem is, I suppose, one of over-population. We certainly urge the Government, as we have on so many occasions, that reasonable access at any rate should remain for her immigrants to this country.
She has many other difficult legacies. We cannot fail to recall the fact that before the last war the West Indies as a whole, and Jamaica herself, was what I can only call an Imperial slum. The lack of development was appalling. It the Moyne Report on the West Indies which in many ways began the new phrase of Commonwealth development in which we are still engaged. Therefore, one does not for one moment underestimate the difficulties of the new members of the Commonwealth.
As the Colonial Secretary has said, she has real assets. She is a relatively sophisticated community. She has a fine university. It is the University of the West Indies, but still it is in Jamaica and it is a great asset to the island. She has as the principal of that university Professor Arthur Lewis, who is well known to so many in this House, and who I think can be considered an asset in himself, for he is perhaps the founder of the science of economic development in underdeveloped areas. I remember the intense excitement when I first read that remarkable book of his,The Theory of Economic Growth.He will have plenty of scope for the practical application of his ideas in the West Indies.
As the Colonial Secretary has also said, industrial development and industrialisation generally has on the whole made a promising start in the island. Industrial development, though, is only one side of the picture. I should like the Government to tell us something about the safeguards for the basic agricultural activities in the island What I have above all in mind is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which is of such tremendous importance to the island. If its provisions were to be

gravely whittled away, it could easily undo any assistance which we can give to the island.
The Colonial Secretary mentioned that in the days when we first went there piracy was the chief occupation. He also said that today tourism is an important activity. Some people might see some relation between the two activities. Nevertheless, I, for one, wish well to those who conduct the tourist industry in the island, and I do not grudge them the sums which they can extract from the international rich.
More seriously, the success of this new member of the Commonwealth is of the utmost importance, not only to the people of Jamaica, but to us and to the world as a whole. It will profoundly affect the whole development of the Caribbean and, as I understand it, that will profoundly affect development all over South America. In this area of the world, where the United States of America is perhaps even more closely concerned than we are, the successful development of a stable democratic government in this newly independent country is of enormous world-wide importance. I very much hope that United States capital and development will continue to be active in the island, because every form of development will certainly be needed with its population growth.
I would put to the Colonial Secretary one specific point concerned with our own continuing share, as I trust it will be, in the economic development of Jamaica It is a point that I have raised before— the ability of the Colonial Development Corporation to initiate new schemes in these newly independent countries. I believe this to be a matter of cardinal importance. The right hon. Gentleman, I was glad to hear, said that he was considering it; but so far as we know, he and the Government as a whole have not come to a decision on it, and we should perhaps take this opportunity to press them on this matter.
The Colonial Development Corporation has just issued its Report and Accounts for 1961. It is a most encouraging document. I was one of those who took part in piloting through the House the Bill which set up the Corporation. It has had its difficulties, but it is a great satisfaction to us to read this Report and Accounts and to find that


newspapers which twelve years ago were foremost in their attacks on the Colonial Development Corporation are now congratulating it and regarding it for what it is— a very great national asset.
Of course, the activities of the Corporation are in danger of contracting. On its present basis, where it is allowed to initiate schemes in the remaining Colonies only, this must he an ever narrowing field of activity. The Corporation itself, quite obviously, considers this to be so. In its Report it tells us, in page 10, paragraph 6, that in effect the limiting factor is not in the amount of capital which it can command but the finding of new schemes in the contracted area of the remaining Colonies, and that it is being hampered and confined by this consideration.
To return to the instance of Jamaica, the Corporation has half-a-dozen excellent schemes in Jamaica and it will, of course, be able to continue these, but it may well wish to develop new schemes there which may be even more valuable than the existing ones. I think that it would be most irrational that it should develop only the existing schemes without weighing against that the desirability, with the necessarily limited amount of capital that it can put into Jamaica, of starting new schemes which might be even more valuable. We feel, therefore, very strongly on this side of the House that it is time that the Government made up their minds on this issue of the ability of C.D.C. to initiate schemes in the independent Commonwealth.
With that main issue which I put to the Government, it remains for me, on behalf, I am sure, of every single hon. Member on this side of the House, to wish the greatest success and good fortune to this new member of the Commonwealth.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am sure that the House feels this is not the occasion for long speeches; in fact we have had two very short speeches from the Front Benches. I should like very briefly from the back benches to express support for the Second Reading of the Bill.
The granting of independence to any Colonial Territory is, of course, always a matter for rejoicing and congratulation, not only in the territory concerned but in the House of Commons and in the United Kingdom; but one should, perhaps, recall on this occasion that it must be tempered by a regret felt, I know, on both sides of the House that we are passing legislation today designed to give Jamaica independence in isolation, instead, as we had all hoped, as the most important component territory in a wider and federated West Indian nation.
We discussed these matters in a valedictory debate not long ago in which we analysed and argued the reasons for the sad break-up of the Federation, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) that it would be redundant and, I think, unsuitable on this occasion to go over all that ground again. We have to look forward now to the future and not back to the past and we can only hope that the formation of the smaller federation of the "little Eight" and more especially the prospect of the shared services in the British Caribbean will in the end produce a form of association. Whether it will be political or only economic we cannot yet tell, but it will be built on the free choice of these sensible and charming West Indian people who, I hope, will one day want to came together again in a lasting union to form a new nation.
In the meantime, Jamaica starts on this great adventure of nationhood alone. She is well fitted for that responsibility. She is politically mature, as is evidenced by her two-party system which works extremely well in Jamaica— better than in most of our ex-Colonial Territories— and as, indeed, was shown by the great success of the constitutional conference in London which was founded on the excellent working together of the Opposition and the then Government in Jamaica just before its representatives came here. That was an example of her political maturity to which we should pay tribute, and it gives us great encouragement for the future of this newly independent territory.

Mr. Donald Chapman: And a model Constitution.

Mr. Fisher: It was a model Constitution for this size of territory.


Jamaica is just of a size and just of an economic viability to sustain the burdens of nationhood, but not, I think, with very much to spare in this respect, although the industrial development in and around the Kingston area is most impressive. I feel that she will still need some help of the kind the right hon. Gentleman suggested and many of us on these benches as well as on those opposite feel very strongly that the operations of C.D.C. should be allowed to continue in the way he described. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has been pressing for that for a long time, as many of us on both sides of the House have done.
Jamaica is one of our oldest Colonies, if not the oldest, and we are fortunate that she is still intensely loyal to the Crown and to the Commonwealth connection. I am sure that she will prove a bulwark of stability and progress throughout the Caribbean area. Those of us who know Jamaica well and love the island and her delightful and friendly people will all wish her well in the exciting years ahead and we are certain that she will justify all the high hopes we have for her.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Secretary of State referred to the earlier association of this country with Jamaica, and as one of my compatriots, Henry Morgan, was one of the pirates associated with the island, it may be appropriate that a Welshman should wish Jamaica well on the attainment of her independence. We hope that it will not close her mind to still closer association with the other islands of the West Indies. I have visited some of the islands there but, to my deep regret, a three-line Whip from this House prevented me from going on to Jamaica. I went out on that occasion on behalf of my own party, which helped to found the Federal Labour Party, and I look forward with intense interest to the future of the West Indies. Let us hope that a federation will emerge again.
I very strongly suport what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) about the Colonial Development Corporation, which has played a not unimportant part in Jamaica's indus-

trial and economic development in the last few years. The Corporation has quite a number of very important ventures still going on there, and it is important to Jamaica that we should get clear the Corporation's present position.
I understand that where the C.D.C. has already established industries or services in a territory existing legislation permits it to maintain them on the territory's attainment of independence. If it were found, as might be the case with Jamaica or elsewhere, that it would be of benefit to develop and expand an industry that has been established by the C.D.C., as well as benefiting the economy as a whole, would that work be regarded as a continuance of work begun before independence and, therefore, still within the scope of the Corporation? Or is that work shut out? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will at least go as far as to regard it as a continuance of the work. I should like them to go much further. If they did, I am sure that their change of mind would meet with the approval of both sides of the House.
I think that it is time to change the name of the Corporation, to enlarge its functions, and to use it as, perhaps, the most important instrument we have of channelling aid to the newly independent countries. The C.D.C. has had its successes and failures, as was bound to be the case in the uncertain conditions that at first prevailed. It has built up a body of knowledge and "know-how" both at home and among its servants all over the Colonies and the now independent territories, and it would be a very great shame to allow it to disintegrate.
What will happen to the C.D.C.? Its world is shrinking all the time. It has a very fine organisation and fine personnel. It has men and women who have gathered a great deal of experience. To allow it just to fade away would be to do a very grave disservice to everyone. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House that the Government are having second thoughts. If not, I trust that when, in the not-too-distant future, my colleagues are back on the Treasury bench, the future of the C.D.C. will be one of the first things they deal with.
We all welcome Jamaica's independence, but we realise what it means. I


think that it was President Truman who described the great revolution that is going on all over the world— of which Jamaica's independence is one example — as a revolution of rising expectations. When people get independence they begin to ask, "What does it mean?" Its success or failure will very largely depend on whether, by political independence and a true democratic system, we can raise the standard of living.
Everyone who has seen the West Indies loves them, and loves their people, but the problems of the poverty of the underdeveloped world are there at their greatest. They are almost intractable. It is to be hoped that after five or ten years' of independence, the standard of life will have so risen that democracy is seen to be not just the right to vote people into Parliament but a means of raising the standard of living by the harnessing of resources, with aid coming from outside. I am sure that the Corporation could play a very big part in that achievement.
What will happen to the small islands that are still excluded? In 1945 there were 600 million people in the British Empire, under Colonial rule. The fact that there now remain only 20 million is one of the greatest silent revolutions that has ever taken place. I believe that there are now only two problems left. There is the problem of the multiracial communities, about which the Home Secretary spoke this afternoon and on which I shall not now dwell. There is also the question of the smaller territories that remain. They are quite as much entitled to independence as any other country; democratic independence should not depend on numbers. What are we to do about those territories? If, as I hope, we can soon settle the problem of Central Africa and of Kenya there will remain to be dealt with the smaller islands— Malta, Mauritius, the Seychelles and the Cayman Islands. They, too, are moved by this wind of change and by the desire for independence.
Are the Government giving any attention to that aspect? I commend for the study of the Under-Secretary a pamphlet produced by a committee of my party, of which I was a member, in which we foresaw the time when the major problem left would be that of the smaller terri-

tories. They are, perhaps, too small to become really effectively independent on their own, having neither the population nor the resources to meet all the demands and deal with all the problems that face modern nationhood.
In that pamphlet we suggested that we should provide in a new way the old concept of Dominion status, enabling those territories to make their own arrangements with any other countries, and assisting them to fulfil the functions of a modern nation. It is time this House gave consideration to this matter, and I would hope that at some time— if not in this Session perhaps in the next— we could devote a day to considering the remainder of the task of transforming an Empire into a Commonwealth. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about that.
It only remains for me to wish well of Jamaica and its political leaders, Government and Opposition, and to hope that independence will not only be sustained and maintained but that, through their democratic system, they can demonstrate that this revolution of rising expectations can be met by a democracy. If I may say so as a democrat by temperament, nature and everything else, that will be the real test of whether democracy can mean something real and tangible to the multitudes everywhere. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will listen to the pleas that have been made to help the Colonial Development Corporation play its full part in making Jamaica the success we will all want it to be.

5.0 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am glad to have this opportunity to say, "Thank you" to the people of Jamaica for the happy and instructive tour I had of the island with the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) when we went there recently. We were delighted to find, despite our slight regret at the ending of the Federation, that Jamaica was on her way to independence. What struck us most was the tremendous courtesy and delightful manner with which we were received. It was also good to find that there were no racial difficulties, and this should help Jamaica in the future. I am delighted to know that she intends to


remain a member of the Commonwealth, and I am sure that every hon. Member will give her a very great welcome.
I want to follow one or two points that have been made by other hon. Members, especially concerning the Industrial Development Corporation. I was very impressed by the work that is being done by this body. One of the greatest difficulties that will face Jamaica, with her rising population, is the question of unemployment. I was, therefore, impressed by the fact that a number of firms are now going out there. Even Royal Worcester China is about to open a factory there. The making of brassieres seems to be a major industry; "uplift" is on the way. I was fascinated by the number of these being made there today. Cloth is also being made, and various other industries are going into production. I hope that others will receive help and encouragement from Her Majesty's Government in the future. After Jamaica becomes independent on 6th August we must provide help for the employment of her population.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to the Colonial Development Corporation. One of the greatest difficulties in Jamaica is housing, and this has been tackled very well by the Corporation. If, between now and 6th August, the Corporation obtains a considerable amount of land, I should like to know whether it will be allowed to develop it after Jamaica's independence. I understand that if the Corporation has begun a project before independence it is allowed to continue, and if it could obtain land it would be of great benefit to the island.
Clause 2 (2,b), dealing with citizenship, provides that a person shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if
he, his father or his father's father was born in Jamaica.
I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in Jamaica there are such things as common law wives, and there is also a rather different idea about marriage and children. There is a matriarchal system, and I am not sure that in all cases it would be possible to trace a person's father or even his father's father. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider

whether another subsection can be added referring to the children of women, who, perhaps owing to the system— and, after all, we were responsible for introducing it in the days of slave trading— may become citizens when the Bill becomes an Act.
I also have a question concerning the Second Schedule, in relation to divorce. Many Jamaicans now living in this countries have been living here for a number of years, and in some cases they may have maintenance orders. I should like to know whether there will be reciprocal arrangements in such matters between this country and Jamaica. That is a very important point.
When I was in Jamaica I was very impressed by the number of voluntary organisations and social services. The hon. Member for Flint, East and I had a good opportunity of seeing them working and I hope that they will continue to work. One of the things that we have learnt is that although we now have a welfare society we have been able to retain the interest of our citizens in voluntary work and I hope that this will continue in Jamaica when she becomes independent.
I hope that Jamaica will recognise the great benefit that she has received from business interests. Sugar and bauxite have been mentioned. Unfortunately, a number of countries, on becoming independent, have thought it a good idea to nationalise such industries. I hope that this will not be the case in Jamaica, because it will not benefit the people of their country.
Jamaica has been fortunate in having some excellent Governors and I pay tribute to the present one, Sir Kenneth Blackburne. He has been an outstanding success, especially when we remember that he has presided in what has not been one of the easiest of periods— during the time of the independence negotiations. With his great sincerity, patience and understanding of the people of Jamaica he has played a tremendous part in the process.
The hon. Member for Flint, East and I received a deputation of overseas civil servants. When Jamaica becomes independent I hope that, like many other Commonwealth countries, she will remember the tremendous amount of help that has been given her by people


from this country in the past, and that she will pay tribute to this help by giving these civil servants security in the future by seeing that their services are well rewarded.
Hon. Members have expressed their sorrow at the ending of the Caribbean Federation. Recently, we had the conference of the "little Eight" and we hope to obtain full federation at least amongst them. I sincerely hope that Jamaica will do all she can to keep the common services in being, and will take the lead in forming a Caribbean Common Market. If all these territories are to benefit in the future they must work together, and when Jamaica becomes independent I hope that she will take the lead.
I am glad that I had an opportunity to visit Jamaica before this Bill was presented, because it has enabled me to pay my tribute to her and to wish her success in the future.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I welcome the Bill. This is a very pleasant occasion for those who take an interest in the Caribbean. Like some other hon. Members, I know Jamaica intimately, and I am proud to have what might almost be called a multitude of friends there— ordinary citizens, social workers, Ministers, Members of Parliament and administrators— among the wonderful people that make up the community of that island. I was there for a couple of months last year, doing nothing else but study the economic development and seeing the mountains of work that lies ahead of the island in the next ten years— trying to piece together for myself the problems that the island will inevitably have to face, and to examine some of the solutions that are being put into practice. When one looks at the island today one sees that there are going to be some sticky days ahead although the outlook will be fair in the long run.
One of the most delightful things that happened to me when I was in Jamaica was that I held a political surgery. So many people there wanted to put forward their ideas about Jamaica's future, about migration and so on and wished to question me, tell me of their ideas

and desires, that I held a political surgery, such as hon. Members conduct in their constituencies. As I say, this was one of the most delightful experiences of my life; crowds of Kingston people crowding around me, putting their views about Britain, the Commonwealth, Jamaica, migration and dozens of other problems. I was happy to feel that I was not only a Member of Parliament representing my own constituency, but that I also, so to speak, represented that far flung part of the world in the British Parliament.
The Colonial Secretary, in moving the Second Reading, mentioned that Jamaica was particularly ready for independence and that she had a number of fortunate factors helping her to face the future with confidence. He mentioned the mature party system that exists in that country. That is so true. We have just witnessed the peaceable change of government which, frankly, none of us expected. It was apparent, after the results of the election, that the electorate had quietly made up its mind to change the Government. The whole thing was completed peacefully and the new Government took over and we now have the former government as a vigorous opposition— all in the British pattern of vigour and democratic restraint. It is indeed also true that there is no racialism there. All the racialist candidates were defeated in that election and that was a happy event.
The Commonwealth Secretary mentioned the wealth of leadership. Jamaica is fortunate in having leadership on a scale which is possessed by hardly any other Colony of its size in the Commonwealth. It is surprising, considering her population of 1· 7 million people, to realise the number of leaders that that country has thrown up, which is indeed a most fortunate fact for Jamaica.
There is Sir Alexander Bustamente, the present Prime Minister, flamboyant, impish, dramatic— liberator, if you like — freedom fighter, one of the greatest of our time. He is devoted to caring for the ordinary man in Jamaica. His opposite number, Mr. Norman Manley, is a very different person, a man who is deliberate and who speaks in measured phrases. In my view he is, without doubt, among our world statesmen. As


the local paper, the Jamaica Gleaner, stated:
On these two men is centred the success of democracy in Jamaica
How lucky Jamaica is to have two such men to have brought that country to its present position with such satisfactory working of a democratic system.
There is one rather funny story I remember most about these two men. It was told to me by Sir Alexander Bustamente when speaking about the vigour of political interchange in Jamaica. I had thought previously that this sort of thing could hardly happen in even the most mature democracy. Roughly, the story goes— although I do not remember the exact figures because it was told to me some time ago— that during an election Mr. Manley, when speaking over the loudspeakers, said that it was scandalous and suspicious that while Sir Alexander had at one time had only one car and £ 5,000 in the bank, after some years in government he had two cars and £ 10,000 in the bank. As I say, I forget the exact figures. Sir Alexander said to me "I issued a writ for libel immediately— because, in fact, I have four cars and £ 50,000 in the bank". This is the sort of interchange and fight that goes on among these two Jamaican leaders and I was extremely pleased, when the story was told to me, that it roused their sense of amusement.
Regarding economic growth, Jamaica is fortunate because in the last ten years she has been developing at the record rate of about 6 per cent. per annum, in real terms. This is the highest rate in the whole area, apart from Puerto Rico, and is an astounding achievement. In the last four to six years Jamaica's industrial expansion has gone on at a tremendous rate. Industrial output is, in fact, half again as great as it was in 1956 and last year manufacturing output equalled agricultural output for the first time. This is a fantastic rate of growth in such a short period and we are reaching the position when Jamaica is, at last, beginning to take off— just about to leave the ground, to use the economists' jargon. As the Americans would have it, Jamaica's economy has moved from an underdeveloped economy to a partially developed one. It is in that light that we must consider Jamaica's problems.
Realising this rate of growth we must, as has been said, consider what may well be her major problem; that as soon as one gets the conditions of a rural slum relieved in a developing country the expectations rise faster than the opportunities of satisfying them. This is Jamaica's problem today. These is a cry for an increasing rate of material improvement, faster than it can be provided, particularly with the population pressure.
The thing that is so heartening to me, and I say this categorically, is the extent of American and Canadian interest in developing Jamaica. We must give every possible encouragement to this trend. In the coming year America is to help Jamaica to the tune of £ 2½ million to be invested in housing, water supply and agricultural credit. I am referring to £ 2— million in twelve months and this covens the fact that there are longer-term plans for further help.
Canada has already invested between 200 million and 250 million dollars in Jamaica. How fine it is to see our Canadian friends in the Commonwealth helping Jamaica along to this extent. How good to see America realising that she can do so much to help this part of the world.
Jamaica is now working to a ten-year plan. At the end of that period we are hoping that there will be some chance of seeing an end to unemployment and the ability to contain the growth of population. If that can be done it will represent a magnificent achievement.
Having reflected for many months and having studied as hard as I could Jamaica's problems, I now wish to make four deliberate suggestions to the Government so that we may remember certain things as we pass the Bill.
First, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said, we must at all costs go on encouraging British private investment. After all, last year British private investment in Jamaica totalled only £ 2½ million. That was certainly not a great deal and, as I have shown, the American Government alone are helping Jamaica to the tune of the same figure in the coming twelve months. We should be doing better than we are in terms of private investment as well as in further Government aid.
Do not let us east Jamaica off today by thinking merely of her independence and imagining that our material and financial responsibilities are going to be reduced. They are not. They will be as great as ever, and we must do our share to help Jamaica along if her unemployment problem is to be conquered during the ten-year plan.
Secondly, we must remember that the Caribbean Commission is now beginning work on the economic development of the whole Caribbean region. The British Government must be willing to give every possible assistance. It has been suggested, rightly, I think, that in setting forth on a development plan for the Caribbean region one of the first things to do is to compare notes with the people who have been responsible for the Colombo development plan. How good it would be if we could learn for Jamaica and the Caribbean what has been learned in the initial period of the Colombo Plan in South-East Asia. This will be another of our great responsibilities, to help to prevent any failure of democracy in the Caribbean to raise the living standards of the people there and so secure the area against Communism or similar creeds.
I do not want to raise controversies about the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, but we must realise, in passing the Bill, that there are grave problems of migration from Jamaica. This is the third factor of importance which we must keep before us. Emigration is Jamaica's safety valve until economic development is proceeding at a pace which will contain the growth of population. If the early working of the Act is to mean that the numbers leaving Jamaica will not be significant, then we must assist Jamaica to find alternative outlets. By "significant" I mean at least 20,000 or 30.000 a year, since that is the number of people who must leave Jamaica, in my view, in order to relieve tension there until unemployment can be cured. This matter must be raised in other parts of the Commonwealth. It ought to be raised, as soon as the Bill is passed, with the United States Government. There is every chance that an amendment of the American immigration laws after independence will add Jamaica to the list of Latin-American

countries which will have quota-free entry to the United States. This, too, is part of our responsibility as we bid farewell to Jamaica as a Colony.
Lastly, I hope that we shall keep a close eye all the time on the sugar industry. It seems likely now that President Kennedy's Bill to alter the basis of sugar purchases by the United States will not become law before 1st July. This means that the present system will continue for another year. In other words, the Kennedy proposals as at present drafted, which would have a profound and harmful effect on the Jamaican sugar industry, seem likely to be postponed for at least a year. If this happens, we shall have a year in which to put pressure on behalf of Jamaica on the American Administration to amend the Bill, if possible, to prevent disaster hitting the sugar industry in Jamaica and the West Indies as a whole following any change in the basis of United States purchasing from the area. I hope that we shall have a year's breathing space in which to help the sugar industry of Jamaica and the West Indies.
In bidding farewell to Jamaica as a Colony and welcoming the island as an equal member of the independent Commonwealth, I return to what I said earlier. We shall face just as many responsibilities for the island's future as we have had in the past when it was a colony. Nevertheless, there is in Britain, I believe, a fund of good will towards Jamaica, the island which I have often described as a little bit of England cast off into the Caribbean. Such is that fund of good will that I have no doubt that we shall help Jamaica in the coming five or ten crucial years, to solve its economic problems and become a truly prosperous part of the British Commonwealth.

5.24 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I am very glad to add my welcome to Jamaica as an independent country. Since I had such a brief, though most delightful, visit there, it would, perhaps, be presumptuous of me to say too much about Jamaica's internal situation, but even a short visit brings certain aspects very sharply to one's attention. For instance, I confess that, until I had been there, I had not appreciated what a very large part of the country is covered with steep


conical mountains, very difficult to cultivate, with very narrow valleys in between.
Agricultural development in many parts of Jamaica is extremely difficult. There is the coastal plain area, with the large sugar and citrus fruit estates, and so forth, but when one considers the opportunities of the population in agriculture and industry, one is forced to realise that, good as the industrial expansion has been in the last few years, in terms of numbers employed it is not as great as all that.
When one thinks of the number of people there, particularly the children— we saw them everywhere— who, in a few years, will want employment, and compares that with the number of opportunities likely in industry, even on the most optimistic estimate, one must conclude that Jamaica cannot have a prosperous future unless two conditions at least are fulfilled.
One is that more intensive agriculture is fostered wherever possible. The other, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has reminded us, is that the prospects of emigration should not be closed. For years to come, we must keep an open door for Jamaicans who cannot possibly find work at home.
In flying over various parts of Jamaica, I was concerned to see that, so far as I could judge— I am no expert in these matters— little seemed to have been done in soil conservation on the steep lands. Bearing in mind some of the work done in East Africa, with contour ploughing, and so forth, I feel that more should be done in Jamaica in agricultural training and organisation. I was a little concerned to find that in the tourist area of the North Coast, for instance, almost all the food consumed in the luxury hotels is imported from the United States. Remembering the favourable climate in Jamaica— it never seemed more favourable than when I returned to this country— it was surprising to me that Jamaica was unable to organise the growing of more fruit, vegetables and so forth to supply these hotels.
The producers ought to be able to obtain fairly good prices from the hotels, judging by the costs to the tourists living in those places. The hon. Lady the

Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and I were privileged to walk in and out of several of the most expensive hotels, and we had an opportunity to judge how the tourists lived. The prices were quite staggering.
Part of the reason for the high prices, of course, lies in the very short tourist season in Jamaica. I hope that this may be extended. In the Bahamas, which, admittedly, is very much closer to the United States coast, the tourist trade is spread over a longer period, whereas the Jamaican tourist season, around Montego Bay and the other resorts, is very short. This is one of Jamaica's economic problems. A great deal of the work is seasonal. There is seasonal work in the tourist industry, seasonal work on the sugar estates, and on the citrus estates.
There will be many problems facing Jamaica in the next few years. For example, the move in the sugar industry is towards greater mechanisation. This increases productivity and profits, but not the number of people employed. The number of people employed in some of the excellent factories for light industry on the industrial estates is not very large.
A great deal of hard thinking must be done on the future of economic development in Jamaica. Certainly, I would welcome American and Canadian investment as well as investment from the United Kingdom in Jamaica. However, I cannot help hoping that American investment will never be quite so preponderant and that we shall not find in Jamaica, as was the case in Nassau, that shops will accept United States dollars but not pound notes. One welcomes within reason the investment of industrialists from the North American Continent and hopes that it will continue. However, as I think every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has said, it would be most regrettable if we failed to continue both public and private investment in Jamaica.
I cannot understand the Government's attitude on the Colonial Development Corporation. I do not want to go over the arguments again, but back bench Members on both sides of the House are agreed on this. For years we have fought a running but losing battle


against the Treasury. We are all convinced that ways can be found to turn this into a Commonwealth development corporation on terms acceptable to the independent members of the Commonwealth. Yet, with this Bill, as with every other preceding independence Bill, we are saying, "If they can only get something started before the given date, it will be possible for them to continue". Is it not ludicrous that they should have to rush through a scheme to try to get it on the books so that it might count for C.D.C. assistance just because of the narrow, parochial attitude, presumably, of the Treasury? One always blames the Treasury in these matters.
I had hoped that the Colonial Secretary, coming fresh to this office, would have taken up this battle yet again. Otherwise, we shall be left relying exclusively on private investors who are influenced from time to time by what happens on Wall Street and on the Stock Exchange and may get unduly despondent on occasion about investing even in such a delightful place as Jamaica. I hope very much that it will be possible to find some way of continuing public investment. Some external investment in industrial projects in Jamaica is desirable, not merely because of the cash which it brings in but because of the technical knowledge which may be obtained by partnership between the various interests. I hope very much that it will be possible to avoid certain tendencies towards monopolistic interests. For example, in the cement industry arrangements were made to tempt investment which has resulted in very high building costs ever since. However, this is not the time to go deeply into that matter, but it was one of the things which shocked me in Jamaica.
Jamaica's position in relation to the other British territories in the Caribbean has been mentioned. I do not know whether it was by design or by accident that this debate on Jamaica's independence takes place on the day that the Act dissolving the Federation comes into force. I am sure that we all feel sad and disappointed at the dissolution of the Federation. I confess that by flying from Trinidad, Barbados, to Jamaica I could feel a little more

realistically than from a distance how difficult it would have been to keep Jamaica and the other Eastern Caribbean territories in a close association. To have made a real success of the Federation, much more would have had to be done in propaganda and education, not of just the few business people and politicians, who can afford air travel, but of the ordinary people who did not always feel that they were West Indians.
Those who regret the dissolution of the Federation most are largely professional people and those in the public services. When in Washington, before going to the Caribbean, I was particularly struck by a talk which I had with the student adviser there who was representing all the British Caribbean countries, including the two mainland countries, British Honduras and British Guiana. He said that it was only when the Federation was about to break apart that the university students and other students in the United States realised the effect that it might have on them. They realised that they might have to go back to much smaller public services in their island territories and to a much more parochial and narrow life than they might have had if the Federation had persisted, with its wider opinions and wider horizons.
The same thing was said to me in Jamaica by a Jamaican, someone who is very well known in this House. He said that it hurt him deeply that this great experiment had been tried but had failed. We know the situation and we must face it realistically. We can only hope that there will be generosity and imagination in preserving the common services.
I was shocked by the first statement of Sir Alexander Bustamente on winning the election that he proposed to break up the British West Indian Airways. I trust that there may have been second thoughts on that. I hope that there will be generous co-operation in all these matters and a recognition, for example, that in some respects the islands of the East Caribbean cannot possibly carry on the common services without the generous help of Trinidad and Jamaica.
We are particularly concerned about the University of the West Indies. We can appreciate the desire to build up institutions of university standing in


Trinidad, for example, but I hope that there will not be undue parochialism in this matter. The University of the West Indies is a very promising institution, but, to preserve university standards and to have a wide enough community of scholars, there must he a certain size for universities, as we have discovered in this country. I hope that nothing will be done to break up the University of the West Indies.
As I have said, many problems face Jamaica and the other islands in the Caribbean, but, of all the territories which the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport and I recently visited, I think that Jamaica was by far the best fitted for independence. Certainly, it has the political maturity to which the Colonial Secretary referred. The hon. Lady and I were entertained at the first social gathering of the two parties following the hotly contested election, and we were happy to feel that, although their members were sharply opposed politically, they were able to meet socially in an agreeable manner, with each of them teasing the other in a way which we are not unfamiliar with in this Parliament.
I think that we can have high hopes for the future of Jamaica provided— and it is a fairly large proviso— that her democratic institutions can be sustained by adequate economic development.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I shall try to follow the example of other hon. Members by being brief.
I feel that there is not a great deal to be said on the Second Reading of the Bill, but that it is a good thing that our friends in Jamaica should know that there are Members on both sides of the House who are very anxious to wish them godspeed in their enterprise. It is largely in that spirit that I wish to speak.
People, particularly hon. Members on this side, must be enthusiastic about the giving of independence to any of our territories in which some economic viability is assured and which are ready for political independence and to rule themselves. But there must be a peculiar feeling in the heart of anyone who loves Jamaica when he reads words in the Bill like this:

Her Majesty's Government … shall have no responsibility".
That is rather startling. It brings me at once to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the many things that have been said since concerning the Colonial Development Corporation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) are the Members in this House who can take the greatest credit for the fact that the C.D.C. was ever formed. I had the honour to be one of the back bench Members who supported them in the Standing Committee when we discussed those matters. We felt that we did a great job of work during those weeks. It is impossible at this stage for us to realise the amount of good that the establishment of the Colonial Development Corporation did. It is terrifying, however, to think that a few weeks from now— in August— a line will be drawn against Jamaica and thereafter, by existing legislation, in no circumstances can aid be given through the C.D.C. to Jamaica.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) suggested that there might be a rush between now and August to get schemes approved, because, as I understand the situation, if a scheme is approved by the C.D.C. before independence it will be carried on. How foolish is that situation. We need not alter the initials, but merely to substitute "Commonwealth" for "Colonial" and all would be well. I hope that we shall be able to persuade Her Majesty's Government to take action on these lines. What a tremendous help it would be to Jamaica.
I still have some worries, which I share very largely with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who has made an excellent detailed study of Jamaica and the West Indies as a whole and has given us the advantage of it in his short speech this afternoon. I would have been much happier if today we had been discussing the independence of the Federation rather than the independence of Jamaica.
This must be one of the greatest disappointments in our colonial history, because here is a series of territories sharing a common and successful multi-


racial outlook, a common culture and a common agricultural interest. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said about the vast distances between the various islands and territories. My hon. Friend is, however, a little pessimistic if she suggests that in the future there will be a very big problem concerning Jamaica and the rest of the West Indies being associated together in federation.
One of the great problems has been the lack of transport and communications generally between the territories. In the light of modern science, and with air travel being so much easier, and, I hope, coming down in cost, the day is surely coming when, as in every other part of the world, those geographical distances could be made to look very small and these people, who have so many things in common, could be held together. I always hoped that that would be the position. It could have brought about transfers, a mixing of populations and the establishment of industries between the islands which would have created a greater economic viability.
We could all give opinions about the reason for the collapse of the Federation. While this may not be the occasion for holding inquests, I cannot resist the temptation to express the view that a great deal of the responsibility for the collapse of the Federation lies upon the shoulders of the new Prime Minister of the island that we are now discussing. He did things in a rather irresponsible way and, unfortunately, his predecessor, for whom I have deep respect, fell for the wiles of Sir Alexander Bustamente. I am inclined to think that Sir Alexander played on the ignorance of the country folk and that Mr. Norman Manley plunged unnecessarily into a referendum. The result of that referendum came only from a complete lack of knowledge among the masses of the country folk in the island.
It is all very sad. Jamaica is now on her own. At the same time, we are considering the establishment of federation for the little Eight. At Marlborough House, the Secretary of State is discussing Trinidad with the representatives, and here is this very unfortunate breakup. However, Jamaica's agriculture and industries improve. As my hon. Friend

the Member for Flint, East has suggested, squalor abounds. Shanty towns go on. The poverty in both town and country defy description. We cannot forget that we ruled the people for 300 years and we have a deep responsibility for the squalor and poverty which still exist. My hon. Friend has referred to the hotels. Do not we all know about them? I have been in and out of those hotels. Only 400 or 500 yards away from some of the most luxurious establishments in the world lie some of the world's worst slums.
How will the new independent Government overcome the problem of those terrible contrasts? The tourist trade is essential, and I should like to see the time come when some of us on these benches will be more easily able to go and stay in a more moderately-priced hotel in Jamaica. There are more moderately-priced hotels in the area of Kingston, but on the north coast it is almost impossible for people like me to afford them. There is a great opening for Jamaica if more moderately-priced hotels can be established and cheaper air and boat fares can be achieved.
During the time of the last Government in Jamaica, there has been great improvement. Let it be said that they came after the new Constitution. When they had more responsibility of their own, improvements took place that never occurred when we were totally responsible. It was only under the new Constitution and under the wonderful statesmanship of Mr. Norman Manley that those advances were being made.
I am a little concerned about some other things. I hope that this is not an attack on the new Prime Minister, but I hear nasty rumours about heads falling in the Civil Service and quasi-Civil Service departments. I hope that those rumours are ill-founded and that a very fine body of men and women who have been living for their island will continue to have the opportunity to serve it.
It is great temptation for an hon. Member like myself to indulge in another speech on immigration, but I just leave it by saying that I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. I would add that even this afternoon there was on


the Order Paper once more a mischievous Question about immigration from the West Indies. Let us forget these things and do all that we possibly can to encourage these people to come here to relieve the situation in which Jamaica finds herself.
I finish, like everybody else, wishing Jamaica well on her new independence. I still hope to be a great friend of Jamaica, and I trust that I shall live some years in which to be so. I am sorry that this day has come in the way that it has and that it is not the independence of a Federation but just the independence of another Colony. It will do well, and we wish it Godspeed.

5.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): We have had a debate which has covered a fairly wide field and which has been marked by good will from all sides of the House towards the people of Jamaica on their achievement of independence.
I think it appropriate for me to deal with one or two technical points in the Bill before winding up the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) raised a point about Clause 2 (2,b) of the Bill. We will certainly look into this. This is a matter not of citizenship inside Jamaica, but of citizenship inside this country, and it is an abnormal provision. My hon. Friend also raised a technical point about divorce jurisdiction and reciprocal arrangements for the payment of maintenance orders. The provision will apply as it applies at the moment, though, of course, it is a matter of enforcement by courts here and in Jamaica.

Mrs. White: Will the hon. Gentleman explain What is abnormal about a child being its mother's child?

Mr. Fraser: Nothing in the least. It is a change in the form of words which we usually use in this country to admit, as far as nationality is concerned, legitimacy in the purest sense. However, I am prepared to look at it. In view of special arrangements which may be necessary because of the Jamaican situation, it is in that sense abnormal to British legislation.
I draw attention to Clause 3 (3). As hon. Members will be aware, we were

determined, as were the Government of Jamaica, that compensation should be paid to Federal civil servants. Because of the method by which we were to proceed with the old Federation, the Bill is drafted in Clause 3 (3) as though actual dissolution had not taken place. It was to provide against this that we inserted the provision. I will see that between now and Third Reading an adjustment is made to Clause 3 (3) because as the old Federation is being dissolved tonight there is no further need for the subsection.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to say whether the arrangements for compensation for the Federal civil servants are now completed satisfactorily?

Mr. Fraser: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the arrangements are acceptable to all concerned.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) prefaced his excellent speech by saying that Her Majesty's Government will no longer be responsible for Jamaica. That is a fact. Independence means independence; nothing more or less. I must say that at moments I felt that some of the speeches were telling the Government of Jamaica what they should do. The Government of Jamaica must now decide what do do on their own. I must say that whether it be Stir Alexander Bustamente in power or Mr. Manley, I am sure that all of us will have complete faith in their judgment. What we have to endeavour to do now is to help an independent nation.
Several points were raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), Whom we were so pleased to have take part in the debate. The spirit of Morgan rides again. We were certainly very happy to have him with us. The right hon. Gentleman, Who had so much to do with the various developments in some of these matters earlier in his political career, raised one or two points that I should like to answer.
There is the matter of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, to which reference was made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I do not know whether I have the constituency right— Dundee, West, or


Dundee, East. It is extremely difficult to have the two representatives of Dundee sitting on the opposite Front Bench talking about matters south of the Equator, or, at any rate, in the tropics.
The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement continues after independence. The matter of negotiations about the world sugar situation and our position in regard to the overseas territories is rather more a matter for debate next week than now. However, the Colonial Office is determined to ensure that the rights and interests of the overseas territories, whether independent or of Commonwealth status, are protected if we go into the Common Market.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) mentioned the important matter of the negotiations with the Americans. These negotiations will be continued after independence entirely by Sir Alexander Bustamente. But, naturally, we have a parallel interest in certain other territories such as Barbados in the West Indies, Fiji and so on and shall do all we can to assist.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the C.D.C. I assure him that this is having the most earnest attention of my right hon. Friend. I myself am completely convinced that "Commonwealth Development Corporation" will become the name of the Colonial Development Corporation. I think that this will be an inevitable development, but we have, of course, to look further at the details. I am speaking today only as a junior Minister, but I am sure that that must be the trend.
Further remarks were addressed to me on the question of other assistance. I am sure that the essence of the attraction of assistance is the political stability which I believe Jamaica can achieve. I believe that this will be not only the magnet to draw money and investment Which is so needed in that country, but also a beacon for that part of the world. I believe that between them Sir Alexander Bustamente and Mr. Manley can establish a proper democratic system. I believe that this island, whatever else may have been said by hon. Members in a tone of regret at the ending of this ill-fated and ill-starred temporary Federation, can, above all others

probably, achieve, maintain and magnify its independence. Therefore, we welcome it, I am sure, from both sides of the House.
With regard to a possible discussion that we may have one day on the subject of the other territories, I would say that nearly all these colonial problems are individual ones. They vary; there is no set rule. However, the one thing of which I am quite certain is that when we look back on today we shall be able to say that we and the people of Jamaica have taken the right decision in sending Jamaica forward to independence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. G. Campbell.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL LOANS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered: read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, the Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: The Joint Under-Secretary of State will recall that on Second Reading I intervened because those I have the honour to represent— the Catholics in Northern Ireland— were rather unhappy about Clause 13 as presented at that time. This Bill began in another place, and views were expressed there about Clause 13 which was, I am glad to say, later amended as the result of an intervention by the Lord Chancellor. Thus, when the Bill arrived here, Clause 13 had been amended to some extent satisfactorily.
I raised then, and I raise again now, the whole question of Clause 13 (1,b), and seek assurances. Those whom I represent in Northern Ireland were very unhappy that the Government were not


able to alter the words contained in that provision, which referred to
… the control of the use of land.
They would like to have seen the words "development of land" inserted instead, but we were not successful. However, we were given certain assurances, for which I am grateful. Since then, there has been correspondence between the Home Secretary and myself and other interested parties on what is meant by the words
… the control of the use of land.
This correspondence was not private and confidential. This was an open letter sent by the Home Secretary to me, in which he gave certain assurances, and I want to put it on record. It was dated 4th May and said:
I have since consulted my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Government, who have authorised me to confirm this forecast; and to say that the new powers are required only to ensure that planning control, public health laws and other legislation of the type which can broadly be described as aimed at the prevention of the anti-social use of property may be applied as it is in Great Britain to all kinds of property irrespective of the class of owner.
It is important that those following the Bill closely will know what the Home Secretary has told me as a Member of Parliament.
The hierarchy in Northern Ireland were also acquainted with that letter and are appreciative and grateful. But I am asked to say tonight that we are still unhappy about the fact that Clause 13 (1,b) could still be misinterpreted by some people in Northern Ireland if they so desired. I want to avoid that risk of misinterpretation.
We are concerned with the possibility that some people in Northern Ireland with a prejudice— and I say this quite openly— could interpret, despite the Home Secretary's assurances, the words
… the control of the use of land.
to mean that they could take certain land. We fear that they could claim that the words did not mean what the Home Secretary's letter declared them to mean.
They might declare, for instance, what a piece of land upon which stands a church hall should be used an an open space, claiming that this amenity was essential to the area. This would mean the whole of that piece of land becoming

sterile. I am not suggesting that there are many people in Northern Ireland generally or in Stormont in particular, who would do this, but at certain levels it might well be done, and it is because those I have the privilege to speak for have these fears that I ask for further assurances to confirm what I have said.
If such action were to be taken, I am surely right in saying that this greatest Parliament in the world is the final authority. I would certainly try to raise the matter on the Floor of the House if we considered that some injustice had been done and that the wording in the Home Secretary's letter had been misinterpreted. I say to the Home Secretary and his Department that we are grateful for the co-operation that we have received. We could not have been treated more courteously. They have tried very hard to meet our point of view. There was a concession in Clause 13 (1,a) for which we were grateful.
I do not live in Northern Ireland, but many of my friends do, and when we express fears about certain problems they may seem alien to this country. If this Bill concerned only Great Britain I should not be concerned. I should be quite happy about these words. But I want to be doubly sure about Northern Ireland. I give notice that if these words are ever misinterpreted by, perhaps, a local official, I will raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

6.8 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Our discussions on the Bill have been brief and amicable. This followed from the general welcome it was given because the objectives of the Bill are really essential. It is the wish of all of us that Northern Ireland should be able to enjoy laws which arc as up to date and beneficial as those we have in Great Britain. We all recognise that the fulfilment of this wish must necessarily involve the Parliament at Westminster from time to time in legislation devoted solely to Northern Ireland affairs, and that, in short, is what this Bill is about.
Since the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has, quite rightly, come back to the question—which I will deal with in a minute—of Clause 13, I can


assure him that if the worst came to the worst—and I have no reason to believe that it would—this House of Commons would still have the fullest power which it has ever had, and it is a power not merely on reserved subjects but on all subjects. Therefore, even if his fears were, in some extraordinary way, justified, we should have power to remedy the situation here.
On behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, I thank the House for its reception of the Bill. It was the practice in earlier years to describe such Bills by the title "Northern Ireland (Miscellanous Provision) Bill". This title was last used in 1945. Since then we have gained in brevity, but perhaps lost in accuracy, by changing to the shorter title of "Northern Ireland Bill."
Short titles should be short. The title "Northern Ireland Bill" may, however, give a greater impression of unity than the contents of the Bill warrant, for there is no lack of miscellany for all the change of title. We have had to jump from the Supreme Court to superannuation, taking in on the way such disparate topics as prerogative writs, juries, slum clearance, rent control, company law, horses, wrecks and warrants of arrest. We have all passed this test of agility with flying colours.
This illustrates the varied respects in which the law relating to Northern Ireland may need amendment and the reason why it would not be possible to include all these amendments in functional legislation confined to a particular topic, although, of course, from time to time we find it appropriate to proceed in that way.
During an earlier stage of the Bill, the Committee had occasion to weigh some nicely balanced arguments about the quorum of the new Supreme Court Rules Committee. I am sure that it gave satisfaction to my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland that we felt able to accede to the practical arguments which they advanced on this point. One might say that the balance was preserved when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) felt able to withdraw his Amendment proposing a Rules and Administration Committee. I hope, also, that

we were able to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on the questions which he asked on the first twelve Clauses of the Bill.
For some years now it has been widely recognised that the law relating to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland has been in need of revision. It is still largely governed by an Act of 1877 which is now inevitably out of date. The first twelve Clauses of the Bill go far to give effect to the recommendations of the Sheil Committee which reported five years ago. As a result of the Bill and, in particular, of the fresh powers which it confers on the Supreme Court Rules Committee, I hope that it will be possible for the law relating to the Supreme Court to be brought up to date in the way the Sheil Committee thought necessary.
I fully recognise that it might have been better if we had been able to introduce an entirely new Judicature Act for Northern Ireland, but that would have been a heavy undertaking and if we had set our sights as high as this, I think that it would have been a long time before we were able to introduce the necessary legislation. Here, as elsewhere, the best would have been the enemy of the good. Nevertheless, I hope that what we have done in the Bill will be found to have gone a long way towards making the improvements in the law relating to the Supreme Court for which the Lord Chief Justice and others have been pressing for some time.
In response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey, I was able at the time of the Second Reading to forecast the intentions of the Northern Ireland Government about the use of the powers conferred by Clause 13 (1, b). I have the express authority of the Northern Ireland Government to confirm his view of this matter. I am very glad that he quoted from the letter of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as that gets it on the record. The new powers are required only to ensure that planning control, public health laws and other legislation of the type which can broadly be described as aimed at the prevention of the anti-social use of property may be applied, as it is in


Great Britain, to all kinds of property irrespective of the class of owner.
I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Government has no intention whatever of misusing this power in any way, and certainly not in the example given by the hon. Member, that is to say, the conceivable sterilisation of land at present being used for a church purpose. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has informed not only the hon. Member, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), of this. There is no question of these powers being used to undermine the safeguards incorporated in Clause 13 (1, a). The Clause must be read as a whole. There is a distinction between subsection (1, a), which is concerned with the diversion of land, and paragraph (b) which is concerned with control over the use of land.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The safeguard in paragraph (a) for buildings used exclusively for religious or educational purposes cannot be evaded by relying on paragraph (b); if it could, the effect of the Clause would be contradictory. Paragraph (b) does not permit the diversion of property, under the pretence of controlling its use, either directly by legislation, or indirectly by executive action.
On Clause 14, it may be worth repeating that the situation of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, the relationship between the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament and the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and, indeed, Northern Ireland's Constitution as a whole are all sui generis, and cannot profitably be compared with the position in other countries to which they may bear some superficial resemblance. I think that it has been generally accepted both in the House and in Northern Ireland and by the hon. Member for Bermondsey in

his very courteous interventions both today and previously that it would be quite incorrect to suggest that the Clause created some new danger of expropriation in Northern Ireland.
On the rest of the Clauses, I would only express the hope that, if we have not thought it necessary to devote a great deal of time to their discussion, this will not be taken to indicate any lack of interest or any lack of belief in their value.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I had not intended to intervene in the debate and I do so only very shortly because the Minister kindly asked me whether I was satisfied about various matters which I had raised on Second Reading and in Committee. My answer to him would be that in regard to all except the jury question I do not feel that I can take the matter any further. These matters have been fully and exhaustively discussed and hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland seats have registered their accord with the Government's proposals. I shall say no more about them.
I do not feel altogether at ease on the question of the reduction in the number of juries, as the Under-Secretary knows. I think that it is wrong in principle, unless there is some overwhelming reason for it. I do not think myself that we had any very compelling reason put before us why juries should be reduced. Convenience was really the basis upon which it was done, and I accept, of course, that the time of busy citizens must not be wasted.
I content myself by saying in reply to the Minister that I still feel uneasy on the question of juries, but that as the matter has been exhaustively discussed and as right hon. and hon. Members do not seem to share my disquiet, I do not think that I can take the matter further in a Northern Ireland Bill.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION)

6.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move,
That the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved
Under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, 1952, powers are given to the Minister of Transport to make Orders in Council to provide for two matters. The first is the issue to British motorists taking their vehicles abroad of any necessary documents. The second is to enable our laws relating to vehicles or their drivers to be modified in favour of foreign visitors coming here with their vehicles. The provisions contained in any such Order must be those which are necessary
to enable effect to be given to any international agreement for the time being in force in respect of the United Kingdom",
so before any Order can be made under the Act there must be an international agreement in force which applies to this country.
Britain is already party to several international agreements relating to motor vehicle circulation. For example, we were party to the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport of 1949, and an Order made under the Act in 1957 enabled us to give effect to the decisions of that conference. As a consequence, visiting motorists are, for example, not required to hold British driving licences, or to pay vehicle and excise duty, or to have British registration plates on their vehicles while they are here.
When an Order is made under the Act, it must first be presented to both Houses of Parliament and approved by affirmative Resolution, and the Order that I am moving tonight is one of these. I said just now that there was an Order of this kind made in 1957. The present Order modifies that one so as to enable us to give effect to certain agreements which have been reached more recently by various international bodies. I do not pretend that the changes are of vast importance, but they are intended to ease somewhat the path of international

tourist traffic and to reduce the formalities. Frankly, if even a short time can be saved in dealing with each visitor who comes here with his car, something of our bad reputation for undue formalities and delays at the ports may be removed.
Five changes are proposed by this Order, and they are contained in the three main articles— Articles 3, 4 and 5. The first change relates to documents for drivers and vehicles going abroad. In 1957, the O.E.E.C. circulated a decision which provided that any country could require chauffeur-driven hired vehicles coming from other countries to carry a special identification plate. In fact, no country has yet imposed such a requirement, and we in the United Kingdom certainly do not intend to do so. But we must take powers against the contingency of such a plate having to be issued to United Kingdom motorists going abroad to a country which may eventually implement that decision.
The second change is to be found in Article 4 and relates to visitors' driving permits. This is a little complicated, but I will explain the matter as clearly as I can. Article 2 of the 1957 Order provides for two types of international driving permit to be recognised. One form is that which was provided for in the 1926 Convention relating to motor traffic. The other is the form provided by the 1949 Convention on Road Traffic, and we recognise this form when it is issued by a country which was party to the 1949 Convention. But we also recognise the 1926 Convention type permit when it is issued by a country which was party either to the 1926 Convention or to the 1949 Convention.
Article 4 of the proposed Order revises the definition of "Convention driving permit" contained in Article 2 (6) of the 1957 Order so as to give effect to a recommendation of U.N.E.S.C.O. This was that countries party to the 1949 Convention should recognise international driving permits of the kind recommended in that Convention, whether they are issued by countries who signed that Convention or not. The basic effect is simply to limit henceforth the degree of recognition accorded to the 1926 type permit, which is much longer than the 1949 type, and to give wider recognition to the 1949 type permit.
A further change made by Article 4 affects the B.A.O.R. Service men and their dependants. At present, they are permitted to drive their private motor vehicles in Germany on a special driving licence which is known as a B.F.G. licence issued by the Army authorities after a driving test. This driving test, and the standards applied, are the same as are laid down for Service drivers in the United Kingdom. For many years these have been accepted as entitling the Service man to our domestic driving licence.
Although the holder of a "Foreign domestic driving permit" is at present entitled to drive here, without any test, for twelve months, the definition in the 1957 Order of a "domestic driving permit" does not include the B.F.G. licence which can be obtained by the British Service man in the B.A.O.R. The consequence of this is that unless the holder of such a licence already has a British driving licence, before he can drive his car away from the port when he comes home on leave, has to obtain a British driving licence. He can get a licence by producing his certificate of competence to drive to a licensing authority, but he has to leave his car at the port until he gets his licence.
On the other hand, his dependants—his wife or children—although they may hold the same driving licence as he does, are not issued with a certificate of competence to drive and have not open to them the course open to him. They have to take a test and obtain a British licence before they can drive a car away from the port, and as the House can imagine this causes considerable delay and inconvenience.
Since, under the 1957 Order, driving permits issued by the Armed Forces of any country outside the United Kingdom are acceptable in Britain, a member of the United Kingdom forces serving in Germany, and his dependants, are, when they visit this country on leave, in an inferior position to the foreign Service man also visiting this country. This is what we want to alter.
Since the issue of a B.F.G. licence is tied to a test comparable to our driving test, we should not be weakening our arrangements in any way by according to it the same recognition that we give, under the 1957 Order, to a foreign

Service man's driving permit, or indeed, to a foreign domestic driving licence. Article 4 of the proposed Order therefore puts B.F.G. driving licences on the same basis as those other forms of driving permit. People who hold them will, if they are resident outside the United Kingdom, and are temporarily in this country, be entitled to use them for driving here, for periods of up to twelve months.
The next change is one of two which are made by Article 5. Under the 1957 Order, regulations could be made for what were known as "international circulation permits" to be issued to temporarily imported vehicles, for the registration of such vehicles, for the assignment to them of registration marks, for the issue of registration cards, and to exempt them from paying vehicle Excise duty. The present period of exemption is laid down in regulations as being a maximum of 90 days. Article 5 will, first, enable the period of exemption from vehicle Excise duty to be increased so as to correspond to the period of exemption from Customs duty, but this is subject to a maximum period of one year, with the sole exception of public passenger vehicles.
Article 5 also omits the present power to issue international circulation permits to visiting motorists. I am sorry to say that the United Kingdom is the only European country which still requires the displaying of an international circulation permit on a visiting motor vehicle so as to show that Excise duty is not payable for the period for which the permit is granted. But now we are extending the period of exemption from the duty, and fewer motorists are likely to become liable to it, so the need for the permit as an aid to enforcement reduces it almost to vanishing point.
This again, I think, will help to speed up the clearance of vehicles through our ports, although I must add, for the sake of clarity, that the visiting motorist will still be given a record of his period of exemption by means of an endorsement on another document which he already has to carry. But this should not take very long to carry through.
I have done my best to explain the somewhat complicated provisions of this Order which I commend to the House as being a useful easement to the freer


circulation of motor traffic between countries and the improvement of international tourism.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I wish to place on record that we on this side of the House welcome this Order and wish to express to the Parliamentary Secretary our appreciation of the way in which he has explained what, on the face of it, appeared to be a very complicated business.
Its advantages, as he has pointed out, are that it is designed to enable Britain to receive tourists much more quickly and freely and encourage them to come to this country to spend their money. We hope that at the same time they will enjoy our scenery. We are bringing ourselves a little more up to date and that is something to be welcomed. This Order is progressive and we have the greatest pleasure in supporting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL FEES

6.31 p.m.

Sir Hubert Ashton (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
That the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, 1962, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
At the outset I should inform the House that this Measure was first considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee on 14th June, 1961. All the Clauses, with the exception of Clause 6, were acceptable to the members. It was felt, however, that the proposals of Clause 6 were rather widely drawn and possibly too uncertain in effect.
Subsequently a meeting took place on 28th June between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly. After discussion on Clause 6 the Measure was withdrawn and resubmitted to the Church Assembly with certain modifications in respect of this Clause. This Measure, in

its slightly revised form, was considered again by the Ecclesiastical Committee on 8th May and it has reported favourably upon the Measure.
Clause 1 deals with fees payable to officials for the legal duties which they perform. It is now proposed that the assessment of 'those fees should be made by a Committee of three lawyers which should be set up from time to time at the request of the two Archbishops; one to be chosen by the Lord Chancellor, one by the Chairman of the Bar Council and one by the President of the Law Society. These fees will be paid to legal officers as defined in the Measure and will require the approval of the Church Assembly and of both Houses of Parliament. The Church Commissioners will ultimately be responsible for the payment of these fees.
Clause 2 deals with fees payable to the clergy for services in respect of Church offices. The Church Commissioners are charged with the duty of providing a new and uniform table of fees to be in force, in due course, in every parish. This table also will have to receive the approval of the Church Assembly and be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Clause 4 will have the effect of relieving the clergy of their liability for fees payable to a legal officer on their ordination, admission to or resignation from any office. Such fees, in the first instance, will become the liability of the archbishops and bishops, who, in turn, will be reimbursed from the General Fund of the Church Commissioners. I am sure that the House will agree that this is in accordance with modern practice and it is the right and proper course.
These are the three main provisions of the Measure which stems from the Fees and Faculties Commission. The proposals received careful consideration in the Church Assembly and were passed without division and without amendment except minor ones proposed by the members in charge. One of these was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing-Commander Bullus). I have already stated that the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported favourably upon the Measure now before the House, and it gives me


great pleasure to move the Motion which is in my name and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: This Measure has recently been described by a leading bishop as a humane but tardy Measure, and I do not suppose anyone would wish to delay its adoption. But there are one or two points that worry me. We understand that this is a Measure intended to relieve clergy from the liability of paying certain fees to ecclesiastical lawyers. That no doubt is where the element of humanity comes in, that it is desirable to defend the clergy against the predatory tendencies of ecclesiastical lawyers. I see that in Clause 4 it states:
… any clerk in Holy Orders would but for in passing of this Measure have been liable to pay any fee, whether required by law or custom, to a legal officer …
I note that although the fees are to be paid by the bishops and archbishops, they will eventually be reimbursed by the Church Commissioners.
No honourable body of men has ever been worse served by its lawyers than the Church Commissioners. There is a long history of fees being paid by these people for advice which has turned out to be bad. History reveals that the property of the Church has been mishandled through bad advice and the inadequacy of the protection which ought to have been available to the owners of Church property to defend it against misuse. The history includes old scandals in areas such as those in my constituency which the Church Commissioners have been helpless to put right because of terms in old leases and inability to show the necessary professional competence or imagination to detect tendencies which might develop. All these things add up to a rather sad record of fees being paid out by the Church Commissioners for bad advice. I hope that the Church Commissioners will take the opportunity to review their habit of paying fees to the professional parasites who hang around their organisation and will look at the fees paid to lawyers and to surveyors and firms of administrators and really see that not only on the part of the clergy now to be defended on humane grounds from——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite impossible to discuss, in connection with this Measure, things like fees to surveyors. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Measure.

Mr. Parkin: I was speaking my last sentence, Mr. Speaker.
If the implications of this Measure are that the Church Commissioners are to take on new responsibilities in relation to fees of any kind, I am sure that out of their experience of the past they will take this opportunity to look much more carefully at the scales of fees they pay and the service which they get in return.

6.38 p.m.

Sir H. Ashton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) agrees that the parson should be relieved of this burden of fees. It may be a little tardy but we have to go through a considerable process in our Church legislation, and now the Measure is nearly on the Statute Book.
On the other hand, I am very sorry indeed that he referred to lawyers who advise the Church Commissioners as not only predatory but inefficient. I ought to tell him that a great deal of the good advice given by the legal officers, chancellors and others to the bishops is given entirely without any fee. I therefore feel that it is a great pity that such comments were made by him, and I should like to inform him that from my experience they are quite untrue. As far as we humanly can, if the Measure goes through we shall continue to run the Church Commissioners' affairs in the most efficient manner that we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, 1962, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament,

Orders of the Day — OIL HEATERS

6.40 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Oil Heaters Regulations, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 884), dated 27th April 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be annulled.
It is not our intention to challenge these Regulations or to ask the Minister


of State to withdraw them, although I have one or two questions to put to him which I hope that he will be able satisfactorily to answer.
Our first purpose in tabling the Prayer is to give us a chance to take note of what to many hon. Members is an important occasion. These are the first Regulations to be made under the Consumer Protection Act, and we wish to mark the occasion with a few words of thanks to all those concerned bath in the Act and in the production of these Regulations. It is true that these Regulations have been a long time in gestation—almost a year—but there is a very good explanation for the time which has been taken.
When the Consumer Protection Bill was under fire and its passage was being somewhat delayed in Committee, some hon. Members were apprehensive about the number of Regulations which would flow from the Act. They thought that Regulations would be imposed by the Home Office on thousands of manufacturers and scores of thousands of shopkeepers who sell the goods with which the Regulations are concerned.
The Minister of State will remember that we tried to allay their fears, and pointed out that, in practice, there would be very few Regulations and that in almost every case they would take a long time to prepare. In every case, as in the case of these Regulations, there would have to be proof of need, rather unfortunately perhaps, because the demand for action by the Home Office will not be voiced until there have been accidents, injuries or deaths or some other calamities arising from unsafe goods.
The need for safe oil heaters has been tragically proved. There have been deaths and injuries arising from the use of unsafe paraffin heaters. That is why we welcome the Regulations which aim at making the sale of unsafe heaters illegal. After the need has been proved, there is bound to be a further delay while the Home Office, in consultation with manufacturers and such organisations as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, works out the rather difficult technical definitions and statistics for safe appliances.
It would be possible for anybody commenting on these Regulations to corn-plain about the delay in issuing them, but, in fairness, I must say that I realise that the working out of these minimum specifications and standards of safety for any manufactured article is necessarily a rather long operation. All kinds of organisations have to be consulted—the manufacturers, D.S.I.R., the fire offices research organisation in this case, the British Standards Institution, and so on. It is not a job which can be done quickly if the results are to be completely satisfactory.
But while we have to accept the inevitable delay, there is one aspect of the procedure which rather worries me, and I wonder whether the Minister of State can help us about this. I understand that we have two safety standards for ail heaters—the Home Office standards, which are written into the Regulation's, and some different standards issued by the British Standards Institution. At first sight, there may be nothing wrong in having two standards. I take it that these regulations provide the minimum safety standards, and it may be that if all the oil heaters from now on are made in accordance with these Regulations, they will all be perfectly safe, even though some will be safer than others.
But the higher—if they are higher, as I understand they are—and safer specifications of the B.S.I. may encourage the, best manufacturers to put even better and safer heaters on the market than would be the case if all of them worked just to these minimum standards and produced nothing better than the minimum standards. This may be a good thing, because we all want the best and safest oil heaters that the manufacturers can produce, made to higher than the minimum standards laid down in the Regulations.
However, thinking it over, it seemed to me that the existence of two standards might be rather harmful and confusing, and I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister whether it would not be better, perhaps easier and cheaper for the Home Office in cases such as this to accept the B.S.I. standard and, in effect, to give legal backing to the standards which have been worked out by the British Standards Institution and approved by the best manufacturers.
There is a further danger—although danger is perhaps the wrong word to use—of creating confusion by having two standards on the same heater, because the Regulations provide that the warning notice must be put upon the heater and describe the heater, which in effect is a marking of a safety standard on the heater, while the best manufacturers will be working to the best B.S.I. standards, which will also be marked on the heater.
It may be that that will not be confusing in practice, but perhaps the Minister will remember that when we were discussing the Bill, I was under the impression, which I expressed at the time, that by following the procedure which I have just mentioned, in cases which it is possible to do so the Regulations would, in effect, give legal enforcement to B.S.I. standards. I am sure that I never expected that we should have two sets of standards, one official and one semiofficial, to be applied to the same article.
The kind of confusion which may arise, in my opinion, can be seen in Regulation No. 9 dealing with draught resistance. This matter has already been brought to the Minister's attention. The Regulation says, in effect, that an oil heater must not flare up or explode if it is subjected to a strong horizontal frontal draught, but it does not say anything about a side or a down draught or a back draught—only a frontal draught. There may be good technical reasons for this, although I believe that the B.S.I. specifications refer to all kinds of draught, so that oil heaters made to B.S.I. standards would be safe in all circumstances, irrespective of the direction in which the wind, when one opened the window or door of the room in which the heater was situated, was blowing.
If there is the slightest danger of any oil heater of any design flaring up and probably causing a fire as a result of a side or down draught, we would be in the somewhat dubious position of having approved Regulations which failed on one specification. Whereas our best manufacturers would be making safer models based on the B.S.I. standards, we would be sanctioning the sale perhaps of less safer models or cheaper models made by other manufacturers or perhaps coming in from abroad.
I hope that the Minister will be able to look at this question and give us an

assurance—perhaps not today, because I realise that this has been rather sprung upon him, but in the near future — that the reference only to frontal draught in the specification as laid down by the Regulations will not mean that we shall have on the market heaters which may, in certain particulars, be unsafe.
I do not think that this is a matter which laymen in the House can pronounce about. It is a technical question. It obviously has to be answered by technical experts. If the Minister of State is unable to answer it today, I shall be quite happy to have the answer on a more appropriate occasion.
For the rest of the Regulations, we welcome them. As I have said, they mark a very important move forward in our steps to protect people from unsafe goods and appliances. The first step in regard to oil heaters was taken by the hon. Member for Kidderminster with the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, 1960. The next step was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), who introduced the parent Bill for these Regulations, with the help of the Home Office and with the very great help—on the Floor of the House, behind the scenes, and in Committee—of the Minister of State. We now have the first of what we hope will be a series of useful Regulations.
I repeat what I said in the debates on the Bill. These and other Regulations which I hope will follow are not aimed at making things difficult for manufacturers and shopkeepers. On the contrary, we are laying down safety standards, and by doing that I think that we are helping them to produce and sell good quality and perfectly safe articles. We are also protecting the best manufacturers and traders from unscrupulous, or at least careless, competitors. Our main concern is for the householder and his family, especially old people and the children. We must reduce the terrible toll of accidents in the home. We must reduce the deaths and the injuries which occur all too frequently through people using faulty appliances. These Regulations will help towards that end. We therefore welcome them and we hope that they will be as satisfactory as we have all hoped that they would be during the long time that we have been waiting for them.

6.54 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity not only of answering the critical questions he asked—I hope that he will find that I am able to answer them satisfactorily—but also of clearing up several misunderstandings which have been brought to our notice with regard to these Regulations.
It is true that the Regulations are made under the Consumer Protection Act and are the first of their kind. Therefore, this is in a sense an important occasion. I fully appreciate the enterprise of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) and others in introducing that Act last Session. I remind the House that the power to make Regulations prescribing safety standards for oil heaters was first provided by the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, 1960, for which credit is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence this evening.
Before the Regulations were ready to be made, the 1960 Act was repealed and superseded by the Consumer Protection Act, which confers on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wide power to make safety Regulations for consumer goods. These Regulations could, therefore, have been made even if the Consumer Protection Act had not been passed.
As the hon. Member has very fairly said, the delay in making the Regulations has been inevitable. I readily agree that their preparation has taken a long time. No single factor has been responsible for the delay. It has been a combination of the complexity of the subject and the need to consult a number of interested organisations.
It is very important that we should bear in mind that the basis of the Consumer Protection Act' is that the Regulations made under it create legal obligations, both civil and criminal. They are enforceable in the courts. One of the results of this is that the code of requirements laid down in the Regulations relating to any particular matter must be precise and comprehensive within its limits. What we have

attempted to do in these Regulations is to give the relevant provisions of the British Standards Institution both the precision and the comprehensiveness or the generality which is essential to legislation backed by criminal sanctions. Therefore, the two standards to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—the one laid down by the British Standards Institution and the other contained in the Regulations—are as nearly identical as the different purpose of the two types of document will admit.
I will explain that a little more fully. The Consumer Protection Act places upon my right hon. Friend a duty
to consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him requisite
before Regulations are made. It will interest the House to know that consultations have taken place, not only with the representatives of the manufacturers and retailers of oil heaters, but with such bodies as the British Standards Institution, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Fire Protection Association, the Consumers' Advisory Council, and the local authority associations.
We have had to take great care in our consultations, in particular with the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association, for if, by inadvertence, we had included something which was technically incorrect, not only would they have been the first to complain but it might have had serious economic consequences for them, as well as criminal results. Therefore, we had to have repeated consultations with the Association. In the final outcome there appeared to be a general measure of agreement that the requirements of the Regulations were consistent with those of British Standard 3300 of 1960 for domestic oil heaters. That is the standard on which the Regulations are based.
Meanwhile, I understand that all oil heaters manufactured in this country since the autumn of 1960 have by voluntary action complied with that standard.

Mr. Darling: All of them?

Mr. Renton: All of them. Since that British Standard was issued in 1960, the oil heaters manufactured in this country have voluntarily complied with that standard. That does not refer to all


those sold in the shops, because before the Standard was issued there were a number of older appliances which did not comply with it. I understand that a number of the worst of those were voluntarily withdrawn anyway, partly as a result of the matter being raised in the House.
The wording of the Regulations differs from the British Standard, not only for the reason I have already given, a general reason, but also because in these Regulations we often—I say "We often", but experience has not yet arisen which entitles me to say that. I should say that we nearly always have to aim at laying down general principles of safety, without necessarily specifying the particular method of achieving safety.
The methods may change with improvements in design and manufacture. The great thing is that we should lay down the requirements, whereas the British Standard deals purely with scientific matters and not only with aims but with methods. That is another reason why there is likely from time to time to be disparity between the two, although not, I hope, inconsistency.
I can without hesitation give an assurance that there is no significant difference between the standard of safety demanded by the Regulations and that required by the British Standard to which I have referred and which, so far as I know, is the only relevant standard. In giving that assurance I am repeating an undertaking given by my predecessor during the debates in the House in May, 1960 on the Committee and Report stages of the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill, that the regulations when made would conform approximately to British Standard 3300 of 1960.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman was quite satisfied with what I have already said, and that I have covered the essential points that he made. I will, however, support that by a somewhat more scientific explanation. I shall try not to blind the House with science, because I am sure that if I did so on this occasion I should be blinding myself. The hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which was issued in 1960, following a study of the effects of

draughts on the operation of drip-feed radiant oil heaters. The conclusions reached in the Report were that heaters of the design then available might cause fires under the draught conditions that could exist in houses when outside doors are open and that the design of future heaters should be improved to make them reasonably safe from draughts up to at least 26 ft. per second.
This recommendation, admittedly, was not limited to draughts from any particular direction. The British Standard 3300 of 1960, which was issued after the publication of that Report and which took account of its findings, required tests to be carried out only with regard to frontal horizontal draughts, and these are the only tests mentioned in the Regulations. It is this standard which is still operative without any alteration in regard to draughts. We understand the view of experts in this matter to be that the main hazard is that of the frontal horizontal draught. The reason for this is that excessive flames produced by a draught from this direction would blow back upon the fuel tank which is placed towards the rear of the oil burner. The result of overheating the fuel tank in this way might be to involve the whole of its contents and so cause a serious fire. This we say, and I ask the House to accept it, is the main hazard to be guarded against.
The present draught test required by the British Standard has to be conducted in draughts up to 26 ft. per second. That is equivalent to 17·7 m.p.h. We feel that a heater designed to pass a test as stiff as that from a frontal direction would be reasonably safe when subjected to normal wind spends from other angles. To design heaters so that they will withstand the full draught from any angle and at similar speeds would be a complex and difficult matter, we are told, so would be the testing of heaters to ensure that they complied with such a stringent requirement. Nevertheless, we must all continue to keep open minds on this matter and it will continue to receive our attention. Therefore, my right hon. Friend in laying these Regulations has not considered it necessary to include them in a more stringent draught test. That is the scientific answer to the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend would in the last resort, if the British Standards Committee was unable to make progress, and if some way of imposing a more stringent requirement carrying criminal sanctions were to come to our notice, not hesitate to act and produce amending Regulations. We would, of course, first issue a warning which might itself be enough to produce agreement among all concerned. But that has not happened yet. The position is that the British Standards Committee has produced a reasonable requirement in its standard of 1960, and is still considering the possibility of improving it further. Meanwhile, we have acted on its scientific advice.
I hope that with this explanation the House will join with me in once more thanking the hon. Member for Hillsborough, and that he may now feel disposed to withdraw his Prayer.

Mr. Darling: With the permission of the House, and in view of the Minister's very thorough explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: Before we dispose of this Prayer there is one question that I should like to ask the Secretary of State. I should like to know if these Regulations cover the sale of second-hand oil heaters. I put that question because, although warnings would be on newly-manufactured heaters, there are areas where there is a limited but constant sale of secondhand heaters, and it is there that fires are most likely to be caused by the mishandling of those heaters. It would, therefore, be as well if it were made known Whether the Regulations apply to the sale of second-hand heaters. We know that, from the passing of the Regulations, new heaters will have to bear a label giving the necessary warnings and comply with the very full details set out in the Regulations, but it would be helpful if we were told whether those requirements will apply on the sale of second-hand heaters.
I welcome the Regulations. I think that they are necessary. Some rather alarming cases have occurred. One occurred in my constituency two years ago and I raised the matter then in the House. The Regulations will help to make these burners safe.
We welcome the Regulation which lays down that on the heater there must be a warning in permanent writing, engraving or etching. That is necessary. But nothing can safeguard a foolish person from his own folly, and all the warnings we may issue, and everything the manufacturers may do, cannot safeguard that person from mishandling one of these stoves, so that it is also necessary to warn, and warn again, those who do not read the Regulations or are uninformed about their terms, of the dangers of carrying a stove when it is alight. They must be warned against using the heater in an unventilated place, and against putting it where it is exposed to draughts. Draughts, as the Minister of State has said, constitute the greatest hazard. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would answer my question.

Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, Mr. Speaker, the point about whether the Regulations apply to second-hand goods cannot be fully answered without referring to Section 2 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961. Subject to the very slight limitations of a somewhat legalistic kind imposed by that Section, these Regulations will normally apply to heaters sold second-hand.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — MUNDON WASH DRAINAGE SCHEME (GRANT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise the matter of the refusal of the Ministry of Agriculture to give the Essex River Board a grant to carry out the Mundon Wash and Lime Brook drainage scheme. I am also grateful to hon. Members who have rushed through the other business this afternoon, and so enabled me to have ample time to put my case.
Although the case specifically refers to one part of my constituency, and to one area occupied by a score or so of farmers, it is one also which has attached to it a general physical principle which


I find the Ministry somewhat reluctant to appreciate. The principle is that water flows downhill. There seems to be some doubt in the Ministry about where the water goes when a drainage scheme is carried out. I can assure the Ministry, on the best possible advice, that it does run downhill, and it is because of that that special drainage schemes are necessary near the sea walls.
The present trouble is caused by the very success of the grant-aided drainage schemes on upland farms. Over the years, one of the most outstanding, useful and lasting improvements in agriculture has been the Government-assisted farm drainage schemes. They have been immensely successful in improving the productivity of farmland and, by putting something permanent on the land, they have also contributed to the national wealth.
The trouble about the Mundon Wash and Lime Brook scheme is that the upland drainage has not yet been completed, and unless something is done to bring in this scheme, or the same scheme only very slightly modified, the situation of the farmers in the lower land—that is, below the 6-ft contour—will continue to deteriorate. Now that we have improved pipe drainage and mole drainage, storm water runs off extremely rapidly and accumulates on the lower land, and some of my constituents face an increasing deterioration of their farms and a consequent reduction in their livelihood.
The project, of which the refusal was announced in reply to a Question I put on 9th May, really consists of two closely-related schemes affecting the Mundon and Latchingdon areas— the Lime Brook scheme and the Mundon Wash scheme. The catchment area of the two schemes—and this is a figure that should be considered when appraising the grant— consists of nearly 6,000 acres of upland, and 1,200 acres of lowland— a total of 7,159 acres.
The proposed scheme consists of a high-level channel to carry the water straight through from the upland areas to the sea wall, a storage reservoir, the clearing of some water courses, and the construction of a number of new sluices. There is, in addition, a sea-defence element costing some £ 17,000, so that the total cost of the scheme must not be

considered as applying only to a drainage scheme.
Two plans have been put forward to deal with the flooding of the low land—a gravity scheme, and what is called a partial pumping scheme. The gravity scheme has been recommended by the river board, and is the one submitted to the Ministry. In his reply, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that an alternative scheme should be looked at, so plans were prepared for a partial pumping scheme. That scheme would, as far as can be seen at the moment, cost approximately the same amount to carry out, but would be more expensive to maintain, because the pumps would have to be run, and the cost of running them must be taken into account.
The gravity scheme, excluding land, is estimated to cost £131,400, with an annual maintenance cost of about £830. The pumping scheme would cost slightly more—as far as can be estimated £ 134,000—but the maintenance would be exactly double each year. The land permanently retained with the partial pumping scheme would be greater than that required for the gravity scheme—14715 acres as against 1272.
The catchment area affected by the scheme is mostly agricultural land, with some woodland, and there are also 59 acres of land in respect of which outline planning permission for building has been given. Nevertheless, it is essentially an agricultural and forestry scheme. The land is particularly rich—good alluvial soil, on a basis of impervious London clay. It is regarded locally, in Essex, as good wheat and beet land, which requires skilful farming and good drainage. I have seen farming in this area for eight or ten years, and I know how skilful it must be in order to catch the land at exactly the right time. Unless the land is adequately drained a complete crop may be lost for a whole season.
I understand that the chief reason for turning down the scheme is its cost. I wonder how the cost was calculated. We must consider the drainage area as a whole, because the water is running off the upland farms into the lower area. The cost must be spread over the whole area, and not merely the benefit area. The total catchment area concerned


amounts to over 7,000 acres. It is worth comparing this with some of the other schemes which have recently been approved by the Ministry. For instance, nearby there is the Asheldon Brook scheme, which had a benefit area of 640 acres, at an estimated cost of £ 60,000 which works out at … 94 per benefit acre. A little further north, up the coast, there is the Ramsey River—on the Stour— scheme, with a benefit area of 621 acres, costing approximately £ 48,000, the cost per benefit acre being approximately £ 
The scheme that we are now discussing has a benefit area considerably in excess of either of those two, but the approximate cost per acre would be only £60. The benefit acreage of these examples were all calculated similarly, using a 6-ft. contour
The scheme is not merely a drainage scheme; it has a sea defence element of about £17,000. It cannot be said that the scheme is being carried out extravagantly. The standards applied are those arrived at by a committee set up with the encouragement of the land drainage branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, consequent upon the very wet summer of 1958. It was a very commonsense and widely representative committee, fully versed in local conditions. On it were representatives of the river board, local authorities, the agricultural executive committee, the C.L.A. and the National Farmers' Union.
The standards they decided as being appropriate were that a tile drain, at 3 ft., should not be submerged for longer than forty-eight hours, which is reasonable under the conditions, and that a mole drain 22 inches deep should not be submerged for more than twelve hours. These cannot be considered as anything but practical suggestions. On the construction side, the board has taken into account the fact that some soil is London clay, and has made the angle of repose of the improved channels as steep as it safely can.
Some of the farmers living in the Mundon Wash area will be seriously affected. Some already have been, especially those who have tried to bring in drainage schemes of their own. Mr. Binder, of South House Farm, had a

scheme refused by the Ministry because it would be obsolete the moment the main drainage scheme that we are discussing was approved. He is now in the position of having a scheme pending, awaiting the outcome of this major drainage scheme.
Mr. Saines, of Halfway House, had a ditch cleaned out under the Small Farmer Scheme. It is now merely collecting the back run from the river board's ditch. This cannot be righted until the scheme is implemented. Mr. Eric Lane, a large farmer, had his scheme criticised by the Ministry, and the 'agricultural executive committee was also criticised for allowing the scheme, because it would not be properly effective until the major scheme was carried out. Mr. Lane told me last Monday that the water has certainly been in the moles for more than twelve hours on a number of occasions.
Another farmer, a Mr. Taylor, has 100 acres that are undrainable until the river board carries out the scheme, and many other farmers are in a similar position. These people earn their livelihood by the land, but they are unable to utilise it profitably and to the full because of the lack of a comprehensive drainage scheme in this area. It is extremely distressing to them to know that as the upland drainage continues to improve so the situation on their farms will continue to deteriorate.
I ask my hon. Friend to see whether he can review the scheme and give us a favourable answer, or persuade his friends at the Treasury—who, I suspect, may have something to do with the refusal of the scheme—that it is a natural corollary to the success of other drainage schemes. I hope that the 200 man-weeks spent by the river board on preparing the scheme will not be wasted, and that it will not be necessary to wait for another 70 man-weeks for the Department to give its approval.

7.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. M. F. Vane): My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has presented his case with great clarity. I begin by saying that I do not for a moment contest his principle that water flows downhill. I


would like to think that he learned that principle when he was P.P.S. to my right hon. Friend's predecessor and hence was, in a sense, responsible for land drainage. As a result of the time he spent with the Department he will know of the great trouble that is taken about all the schemes, small as well as large, which are put up to us.
I know about the efforts he has made in regard to this particular scheme on his constituents' behalf and I know that the river board and the internal drainage board together are anxious to effect substantial improvements. I can assure my hon. Friend that we never lightly reject any scheme, big or small. I sympathise with them, but I hope that I can give them some hope this evening as well as sympathy.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have to apply certain standards to all proposals and we have, as he knows, felt unable to help them over this particular scheme at this particular time. The proposals which were submitted to us by the Essex River Board, who act also as the internal drainage board for the Mundon and Latchington Drainage District, were to provide for the improvement of the drainage of an area of about 2,350 acres of farmland on the right bank of the River Blackwater and also for the improvement of part of the tidal defences.
When considering drainage schemes we must think of the upland as well as the lowland and also the tidal defences. We cannot divide these into parts and we are today speaking of a scheme which the board estimated would cost about £140,000 and for which it has applied for grant aid for this work. The total grant aid would have been about £106,000. Parliament has authorised the Minister to pay grant, in agreement with the Treasury, in respect of expenditure on the improvement of existing works or the construction of new works, but not, of course, on maintenance work.
To show how we are looking ahead and are not cutting back—since my hon. Friend brought the Treasury into his argument later in his speech— in 1960–61 a total of just under £3 million was paid to river boards in grants. Last year, it was just under £3½ million and our current estimates concern a figure of about £4 million. I hope, therefore,

that my hon. Friend will agree that we are trying to press ahead with essential works. These are not insignificant increases and they certainly show a steadily upward trend.
This expenditure is, I am sure, fully justified because of the importance of encouraging improvements and new works affecting land drainage and flood protection throughout the country. However, the total amounts available in this, as in every aspect of Government expenditure, are limited and it is necessary for us to examine very carefully all the schemes that are put before us and to make sure that not only are we satisfied with the proposals on engineering grounds, but are also satisfied that the utilisation of national resources in this way is fully justified and the proper priorities are established as between the many claimants.
We do our best, therefore, to see that the money spent in grant is used in those cases where the maximum benefit can be achieved from the expenditure involved. There is an element of personal opinion in all of this, as it must be when the Minister's discretion is involved. We do, of course, find it necessary sometimes to refuse grants where we are not satisfied that the cost is reasonable in relation to the benefit. It is a little misleading to try to calculate exact figures, as my hon. Friend did, because when dealing with big schemes of this sort, social implications and many other things are involved. In some cases we ask for revision and in others we say that we feel that the costs are more than would be reasonable, bearing in mind that there are always other schemes to be considered.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we looked at this case most carefully. We were impressed with the fact that the scheme was undoubtedly complex. My hon. Friend spoke about coast protection work and of a small reservoir to help his gravity plans. It was, therefore, expensive. The estimated cost was about £140,000. That is not a really small amount when thinking in terms of the call on our national resources because there is considerable consequential expenditure on the part of the landowners and farmers concerned if the scheme's full value is to be drawn. In this connection my hon. Friend showed the cir


cumstances by quoting the cases of a number of his constituents.
We appreciate that to a certain degree tidal defences are involved, but it seemed to us difficult to justify capital expenditure of this order on this scheme. By this, I mean that it did not seem to us a strong enough case to warrant a place near the head of the queue. Reference has been made to the fact that some time ago the board had two schemes approved for grant where the cost per acre was more than in the Mundon Wash scheme.
We have no fixed figure per acre which we apply to assess the relationship between cost and benefit. The circumstances between one county and another and even between a part of a county and another vary considerably and we attach great importance to ensuring that we are going to get real benefit which will justify the expenditure in every case. We always take into account all the benefits from a scheme before reaching a decision, not least because of the increasing number of schemes, many of them large, which are being put forward by river boards.
We have not by any means ruled out all and every scheme. What we are saying is that this particular scheme is too expensive in relation to the likely benefit and that in its present form we would not be justified in putting it to the head of the list of schemes throughout the country. It may be that the board will be able to produce an amended scheme which we can accept. My hon. Friend mentioned two schemes, gravity and pumping, and it might be that a revision would be able to produce something which we would feel could be given a higher priority.
My hon. Friend referred to the time taken to give a decision. It is true that this case took longer than normal, but it is a complex, costly and rather exceptional scheme. It must always take time to examine all the aspects of such a scheme and in this case, as my hon. Friend knows, we spent a long time in making sure that we got a proper appreciation of the financial and engineering aspects.
It may interest the House to know that at any one time we have at least a dozen major schemes like this one under consideration. In all, we have

about 1,000 schemes of varying importance annually to consider and assess for priority. We are reviewing our policy on grant-aid to land drainage works, one object being to streamline the procedure for dealing with cases of this kind, and I hope that we shall soon be in a position to discuss our proposals with the River Boards' Association.
We did not find it easy to reach a decision about this scheme, but I hope that it will be possible for a less costly one to be prepared which, although it may not do all that the present scheme would have done will, nevertheless, be such that we can approve it for grant. The Ministry's Chief Engineer has recently been in touch with the board's engineer and offered to co-operate with him to see what could be devised.
I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are not just turning this down out of hand. We would like to help him all we can, and the river board, to see whether something can be devised which is acceptable. I am not without hope that something of the sort can be devised and my hon. Friend need not be without hope, either.

Orders of the Day — COST OF LIVING

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: This is undoubtedly an unexpected opportunity for me to raise a matter which is worrying to millions of people. And I welcome it in order to ventilate one aspect of the subject. I refer, of course, to the cost of living and, in that context, the rising cost of living. I submit that the turn it has taken recently is a matter for grave concern and that the prospect for the ordinary people of Britain seems gloomy in this respect.
Before dealing with statistics I shall deal with the matter in terms of human welfare. I have a neighbour with two children who is proposing to go on holiday this week. The breadwinner is a civil servant. Two days ago, he told me of the increases in his budget during the last few weeks. He finds himself in difficulty, so much so that the idea of going away on holiday is marred by financial considerations.
The index of retail prices rose by two points in the five weeks between 13th March and 17th April. The index has


risen as much during the past twelve months as it did in the previous three and a half years. There was a hope that prices would have reached their peak and that, at long last, the Government would he able to follow their promise that they would see that prices came down. What is particularly disconcerting is that the past twelve months have been the period of the so-called pay pause. I need not emphasise that, if the situation is such that it is necessary to have a pay pause at all, it is essential that some form of control should be exercised, or action taken by the Government, so that there will be restraint in prices.
Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say that, during the period of the Labour Government, prices rocketed. That was during the period of the Korean War, of course, and it is the fact that this country was at that time at the bottom of the league in regard to price increases because of the control which the Labour Government had exercised. No one can deny that the terms of world trade have for long periods since been very favourable to this country, yet prices have never come down. During 1960–61, the terms of trade improved by 3 per cent, but never has there been a sign of price reductions.
The Financial Secretary may imagine that these accusations are just a political move. I remind him now that there are other minds, apart from those in the Labour Party, which regard the situation as serious. On Monday of this week, the editorial in the Evening News—which certainly does not come from Transport House—said:
The spiral again. Every housewife knows how in the past few weeks food prices, even excluding vegetables hit by the cold weather, have risen quite drastically in some cases. The latest index of retail prices showed a 2 point rise in the five week period ending April, 17th; and the figure has almost certainly risen since.
Those were the words of people who, I should have thought, were friends of the Government.
A few days ago, we had the results of an excellent survey carried out by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics. This survey revealed in terms that for a family of five having a modest diet the cost has gone up by 6s. 7d. a week. This can he a cause for some alarm to fami-

lies already running near the wind with their budget.
It is not unkind to recall that the Government said, before they were elected in 1951, that
A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programme on rising prices.
That was a promise. The Government must take note of the present trend and tell us what they propose to do, particularly during the period of the pay pause. If there is restraint in one direction, we need action and, if necessary, control in another.
Today, eleven years after the Government's promise was made, little can be seen of any attempt to keep faith with the public. The Government have pursued policies which have put up living costs—and they have done it deliberately—from housing to fares, from coal to lollipops and petrol. One could draw up a long list of things which people need in their everyday lives and which are costing more and more, clearly showing that the Government have no concern at all for the cost of living; or, if they have, they are quite unable, for whatever reason, to take any action about it.
The hon. Gentleman will remember the posters put up eleven years ago, showing a large diagram and carrying a slogan about mending the hole in the purse. That campaign had a tremendous influence on ordinary people, particularly the housewife, who has a difficult job to do. But has the hole in the purse been mended? Whatever pause there was for a period was due to the fall in world prices, and even then we were not at the top of the league table in Europe as regards price restraint. The Government got by just because world prices came down.
Any Government who hope to call with any moral authority for wage restraint must be seen to be doing something to control the rising cost of living. The Government should be pleased that the women have, for some reason, lost the militancy of the suffragettes. In the 1940s there was a group of women called the Housewives League, but we have not seen them since the Government last came to power. However, there is evidence now that women as well as men are, at long last, becoming very worried about rising costs.
The problem of restraint has two sides. I want the Prime Minister to take an interest in this matter. A month ago, the President of the United States made a blasting attack on those who were putting up prices in the United States. Is it too much for our Prime Minister to say a few words? In this debate, we are talking about the welfare of the consumer, yet this is being looked after, if that is the word, by six different Government Departments. If the Government were really serious in wanting to look after the consumer and control the cost of living, they would be keen to establish a Ministry of Consumer Welfare, or, at least, a department of the Board of Trade to deal with it. One of the problems here is the multiplicity of Ministries involved.
Although it is true that expenditure on food represents, on average, less than one-third of the usual family's expenditure, it represents a large part of the weekly budget of old people. The present prospect for a very large number of poor old people is bleak.
The price of foodstuffs generally has rise less quickly than that of other items in the index. The slowest rises have been among what I might call convenient foods, such as canned, quick frozen and cooked foods which are not bought to a very great extent by old people. The rises which have particularly affected the lower-paid workers and the elderly people have been among items such as bread, red meat and vegetables, which constitute a very big percentage of their diet. There has been a steep increase in fuel costs which, in the main, have to be met at the end of the summer period. It is a bleak time for the lower-paid workers and particularly for the poor old people.
I said earlier that the Government have not done anything to help to restrain the increase in the cost of living, but there is plenty of evidence to show that they have played havoc with it in one way or another. There is the high cost of housing and the Rent Act. Many people cannot think of buying fuel at its present cost and they have to cut down on food. There have been increases in the rates as a result of the Government's financial policy. The Treasury is the main nigger in the wood

pile. Young couples wishing to buy houses are faced with high interest rates on their mortgages. Whether they are buying a house or whether they are in a council house, people are being affected by the Government's policy.
There is Purchase Tax on clothing. I should have thought that, with this businessman's Government at the helm, and since the war has been over so long, the Purchase Tax on clothing could be eliminated. It costs people a great deal of money to get to and from work. There have been increases in fares, petrol and licence fees.
Another situation which has arisen in the last week or two is the meat dispute. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House warned the butchers that the customers would 'have something to say if prices did not come down, but he does not propose to do anything about it and he has rejected any form of control. I wonder whether the Minister is right? In fact, I wonder whether he worries if he is right. On Wednesday, the President of the London Retail Meat Traders Association said:
During the past month wholesale prices of meat have been rising steeply in almost all categories—for instance, 20 per cent. on New Zealand lamb, 17 per cent. on English beef, 12 per cent. on Argentine hind quarters of beef 
Wherever the meat comes from, the price of it goes up. If people want meat, they will 'have to pay more for it.
The Minister blamed the butchers in this matter. Do the Government propose to look into the increased price of meat, or do they intend merely to blame the butchers? Will the butchers say that it is not their fault, but that of the wholesalers? Is not this a matter for a Government concerned with the welfare of the people and who do not want those people to ask for increased wages because of the difficult economic situations? When will the Government wake up and show that they are ready to take an interest in the daily lives of the people?
If the Minister of Agriculture is not right, who is? If he is wrong, do not the retail butchers deserve an apology? Let us hear that there will be a Government inquiry into this so that the customer can know whether he is being looked after by the Government. I


understand that a call was made to the Ministry of Agriculture, and a baffled official said, "We cannot understand what is happening. There seems to be no reason for the increases." What a lot of good that is to the housewife when she goes to the butcher's shop. It seems that the Government are out to disturb every facet of our national life in one way another. One day it is the nurses, the civil servants, and the loyal workers in various Government Departments. So successful have the Government been in disturbing the community at a very difficult time that people are thinking of striking who have never thought of doing so before.
Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) delivered a blast at the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary did not contradict it. My hon. Friend said that he would chase the Government until they do something about this matter, and I think that he meant it. He stated that during this period of difficulty
company profits have increased by £1,000 million in less than ten years. But the annual taxation paid on those company profits has gone down by £58 million."—[OFFICIAT. REPORT, 29th May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1181.]
There is no doubt that in the last eleven years there has not been much concentration on mending the hole in the purse, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the privileged people have been doing fairly well.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle) rose——

Mr. Dodds: It is no use the Minister coming to life now. He did not get up when the figures were given across the Table on Tuesday, and I can only assume that they were accurate. If he denies it now, he knows very well that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East will be back on the scene before long. It would, therefore, be as well if the hon. Gentleman accepted it.
The rise in prices poses a difficult problem for the Government. They cannot ignore it; they must do something about it. We have had what has been called "the guiding light". Let it shine on both sides of the counter. I hope that the Government can find a way of solving this problem because, although I am a member of the Opposition, it gives me no pleasure to see hardship

and distress among the lower income groups and among old people. A medical officer of health reported a few days ago on the high percentage of old people who are suffering from a lack of food. Yet, in 1962, we hear of the surtax payers getting £83 million. It seems that the object of the Government is to lower taxation particularly for the people at the top and that they are ready to impose indirect taxation wherever possible. Who would have believed in 1951 that there would be a tax on children's sweets and lollies? That shows how low we have sunk in the fiscal sense.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, I promise the Financial Secretary that we shall return to this matter. I like the hon. Gentleman as a man. I am sorry that he is being kept here so long. He is a very agreeable chap. Whatever may be the situation, he always makes a good defence for the Government, and I congratulate him on that. But this is not an isolated attack on the rising cost of living. It will be repeated again and again. Therefore, this is merely a warning that the Government must "get cracking" to show that they mean business and will endeavour to control the rise in prices which, if it continues, may destroy everything that the Government or anyone else may seek to achieve in the next few years.

Sir E. Boyle: May I say to the House that I do not want to be discourteous, but that this debate came on at short notice and that, in view of what the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) has just said in his speech, it may be necessary for me to leave the House presently for further information while hon. Members are speaking.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) for taking the opportunity to initiate this debate on the rising cost of living. It is good to see back benchers on this side taking these opportunities and showing their Parliamentary skill.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Where are the others?

Mr. Bence: Generally speaking, hon. Members on this side are often more alive and more awake to the possibilities and to the things that can be done within the traditions, the constitution and the Standing Orders of the House. We on this side are always much more alive to our opportunities, and quicker to see them so that we may press the complaints and grievances of our people.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. I hope that he will not mind if I speak about Scotland. In the last week, I happened to be in West Lothian, where a by-election is pending. I was shocked by what I found when going around some of the lovely villages built by the West Lothian County Council, with their lovely areas and fine council houses. I canvassed, knocked on doors and met old people. In house after house, they do not apply for National Assistance in that part of Scotland. I have neved met such independent people. Their children are away. Over a quarter of a million have left Scotland in the last ten years because there is no work for them, and they have gone south.
The population in the villages is almost stable and mainly old people. In discussion with shopkeepers, one discovers that because of reduced turnover and increased rate burdens on their commercial premises, they find it difficult to get a living without hardening prices. It is an amazing phenomenon that prices are higher in many of these areas of impoverished Scotland.
I checked prices in Bathgate and in Broxburn, as well as in Bo'ness, and I found that prices in shops were much higher than in, say, Finchley or Putney or the environs of London, for the simple reason that unemployment, low incomes, the departure of the young people, the small turnover and the increasing burden of rates and taxation means that the small shopkepers and traders of all kinds must get a bigger gross profit.
Therefore, we in Scotland suffer in both ways, both from heavy unemployment and from the high cost of administration because of the tremendous social task. We have high taxation, high costs and high prices amongst a people whose income is lower than incomes in the Midlands and the South. The cost-of

living problem in Scotland is much more severe than any Member of the Government realises.
Too often have the Government visualised the economy of Scotland and conditions there as a reflection, as it were, of conditions in the Midlands and the South. The true picture is entirely different. It is like being in a different world. I wonder sometimes why we get the sort of economic policies which are expounded from the Government Front Bench and how the Government believe that the policy which they are following for the benefit of the South can avoid doing more damage to Scotland.
Earlier this evening, we discussed Regulations concerning consumer protection—very good Regulations indeed. I am in favour of protecting the consumer against manufacturers and distributors who mislead the consumer and who sell products which are not up to standard, and sometimes of standards that are indeed dangerous to the consumer. Consumer protection Regulations were brought in because the Government, quite rightly, have taken action to prevent consumers from a dangerous form of oil heater.
We take action to protect consumers against their homes being destroyed by fire and there are all sorts of legislation to protect consumers from dangerous drugs, but one action which, apparently, we are not prepared to take is to protect the consumer from being exploited. Those who control the means of production and distribution seem to be able to sweep in any benefits that we may get in the process of our labour and of producing goods and services. The position seems to be worse in Scotland than anywhere else.
I quite understand that goods which are pitched into the market will fetch the highest price according to the quantity of money that is searching for those goods. The argument of the Government is that when too much money is chasing too few goods, the price of the goods will rise.
Ever since the Government have been in power, we have had rising prices and rising costs over the last eleven years. There was a short period about two years ago when there was some stability, but twelve months ago prices started to


rise again notwithstanding that there had been a fall in world prices in practically every country. Prices were falling on the Continent and in the United States, but here they were rising.
We know that in a free economy such as ours, if money is distributed through investment or higher wages and more goods are produced, the distributor or entrepreneur will mark up his goods and get a bigger price for them. If that happened uniformly throughout the country, prices would fall in Scotland, with its 80,000 unemployed, because there would be an area of low incomes and not much money. One would imagine that under our so-called free economy conditions, prices up there would be lower.
That is no longer true, however, because practically all the goods that we produce, no matter who produces them, are marketed through trading associations and by agreement with trading associations, so that a packet of cornflakes costs the same in Scotland as in London.
In some cases there are extra costs. Some years ago, I wanted a wheelbarrow and went into a shop in Glasgow, where I saw one for £ 3 15s., which I thought was dear. It was made, I believe, in Gillingham, Kent, or somewhere in that area. I asked the shopkeeper the reason for the terrible price. He replied that it was the carriage from London.
I decided instead to try a shop in London, where I saw an identical wheelbarrow marked up at £2 10s. Carriage to Glasgow was 4s. 9d. I get fed' up with traders in Scotland telling me that things are dearer up there than down here because of carriage. I asked once about plums. I remember in 1950 buying plums in the Bullring, Birmingham, for 2d. per lb., when plums grown in Lanarkshire were 8d. per lb. in Dunbarton. Again, I was told that carriage accounted for the difference. The railways assured me, however, that it did not cost 6d. per lb. to send plums from Evesham to Glasgow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I fear that the hon. Member is allowing his speech to go outside what is a Government responsibility.

Mr. Bence: I am talking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker about the increase in the price of goods marketed in this country and about some of the reasons given by some of the traders for those increases. I believe that it is the responsibility of any Government to maintain full employment and stable prices. The Conservative Government say that is what they want to do. I accept that. But my challenge is that they do not do much about it.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The index of retail prices published by the Ministry of Labour gives as one of the reasons for the recent increase in the cost of living the increase in the price of fruit and vegetables. Surely, therefore, it is relevant in a debate about the cost of living to refer to such articles.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I accept the hon. Member's point of order, but as I was listening to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) I thought he was alluding to the action of an individual trader in increasing unreasonably the price of an individual article, and I thought that that was going beyond the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. One appreciates to the full that the Government are not responsible for the prices that a trader in Scotland asks for his goods. They are equally not responsible for the wage negotiations in the private sector of industry. Nevertheless, the Government have a general policy about wages, and they are able to give advice, and they do so, and they correlate the advice they give to the private sector on these points with the policy they adopt in the nationalised industries. This, equally, is not their direct responsibility. It becomes their responsibility because they make it so in advancing a general policy about wages. What my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East appears to me to be saying is that it is equally relevant to have a general policy about prices, and he is showing how it works.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes; I do not think that there is very much between the hon. Member and myself. It was the taking of this individual case of a


private trader, who I do not think was the responsibility of the Government. It was at that point, and that point only that I interrupted the hon. Member.

Mr. Bence: Your checking me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, has certainly been very enlightening. We have had a very able and lucid explanation——

Mr. E. G. Willis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are very grateful for your help, but surely it is in order to quote what one private trader or another is doing and to suggest that the Government ought to take some action to stop such exploitation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The answer to that is dependent upon whether the action that the hon. Member is advocating would entail legislation, because it is not in order for us, as hon. Members know, to discuss legislation in detail on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Ross: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think it is important that we should bear in mind that the index of retail prices is compiled on the basis of taking prices in various parts of the country. Surely if there is anything at all that is relevant to a debate about the cost of living, it is the price in any part of the country of any item which appears in the Index.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the price of a individual article, a single case citing a single tradesman, can rightly be described as the responsibility of the Government in the context of this Adjournment debate. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman because I thought that way, but the debate can continue as it has done hitherto without interruption from me and, I think, without hon. Members getting out of order in any respect.

Mr. Bence: I suffer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from the fact that I am a countryman and whenever I see a huge wood I know it is composed of a great many trees and I look at the trees. When I see statistics, I know that they are drawn from the figures of many little firms. That is why I quoted an individual case; I know that it must constitute a part of the statistics.
But the Government take action in some fields which impinges upon prices and costs to individuals, such as in housing. They exercise a control element in rent structure. We have legislation for Scotland giving the Secretary of State power to determine the rent. Electricity can also be cited. The Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board states that the price of electricity has been raised so that the Board may comply with the Government's new policy requiring that it should create sufficient reserves itself for its capital development. Therefore, the increased price of electricity is the result of Government action. If that Report is not accurate, I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us.
Government action of this sort in raising prices should figure in the cost of living index. Potatoes provide another example. The price of agricultural products is determined in large measure by Government policy. I recently saw a leaflet from the Tory Central Office asking people who were fighting in the municipal elections not to fight as Independents or Progressives but to say what they were—Conservatives. In my constituency they would not dare do that in present circumstances because of the price of potatoes. We are taxed in order to subsidise the farmer to produce as much as he possibly can, and then another Department fines him because he has produced too many potatoes. Then we find we are short of potatoes, and the result of that is that Scottish housewives now cannot buy potatoes. The potato is now a luxury. Scots going into fish and chips shops now say, "Three pieces of fish and one chip". It is "fishes and chip" now, not "fish and chips". This is despite the fact that thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has gone to subsidise the farmers.
There are fields in which the Government exercise very powerful control over prices, but there are others where they seem to be completely indifferent to the prices charged. I am the son of a butcher. I have been in Scotland for eleven years and every weekend we get the most beautiful beef. I have had in Glasgow the finest beef in my life. But it is 10d. lb. dearer than in London.

Mr. Ross: It is not the carriage, but the quality.

Mr. Bence: It is beautiful meat. I will not mention the name of the firm, because that would not be fair to other butchers.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend could mention the breed.

Mr. Bence: Aberdeen Angus. My hon. Friend knows the name as well as I do. One can get this meat in London much cheaper than in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: But the buchers here have not reached the point when they know how to cut joints. That is the trouble.

Mr. Bence: During the last five years, it has been suggested to me on several occasions that when a butcher buys cattle alive from the stock market he is left with tons of what is called coarse meat within the bull, since, because of the rising standard of living, people are increasingly wanting better cuts.
This coarse meat was sold before the war for manufacturing purposes, and the manufacturers tender for it. That trade is now in the hands of very small groups organised together almost in a ring. There used to be a wholesale butchers' ring in the stock markets before the war. They got together and bought the cattle cheap. I wonder to what extent the butcher is being forced to sell for manufacture the coarse meat at very low prices because of a kind of ring on the manufacturing side. The Government should inquire into this.
It is extraordinary that the terriffic drop in wholesale prices of lamb, beef and mutton in recent years has not been reflected by any corresponding drop in the shops. Not all butchers are rogues. Of course, there are rogues among them as there are among Members of Parliament— —

Mr. Ross: They are now on their way home.

Mr. Bence: —but I am convinced that the prices which the butcher is getting from the manufacturing side are inadequate, I am sure that the housewife would get cheaper meat from the butcher if he could get better prices from Wall's, Unilever, MacFisheries, Bird's and other firms. These are the people who buy the coarse meat for the deep freeze. They are powerful organisations and it is they, not the housewife, who are get

ting the benefit both of the subsidy and of the fall in the price of cattle. The Government should examine what is happening in the wholesale and retail distribution of meat. Here may lie part of the answer as to why the butcher cannot bring dawn his prices to a more reasonable level.
It is really rather insulting to all sorts of workers, whether they be civil servants, nurses, doctors or factory workers, for the Government to go on talking about the first need being to stop wage rises. The Government say that we cannot have continual increases in wages year after year without more production. We recognise the economic arguments, but what about the housewife? She sees her husband perhaps working a few more hours a week and hears him talk of new machinery and new techniques, with more and more coming off the production line. Yet at the same time she finds her real income either not increasing or increasing very little.
If the pay pause is maintained what will be the situation as electricity and gas prices, and rents, rates and Purchase Tax—even on lollipops—go up? As an engineer, it makes me wonder what use it is to produce more and more and to concentrate intellectual effort on devising new machines when all that happens is that we get higher prices from a more efficient productive machine.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) raised this subject because a very challenging situation faces the Government. The Conservatives did not say in 1951 that they would stabilise the cost of living. They said that they would stabilise it for a time and then bring it down. Those were their terms of reference from the electorate in 1951. But after eleven years of office it must be agreed that they have brought about a most remarkable situation.
The gates of the House of Commons have been clogged during the last two or three years with people coming here to fight for wage increases—not to increase their standard of living, but to maintain it as it is. It might be said of them that they are running very hard to go backwards. That is the situation which


the Government should look at with a little more concern than hitherto.
In the Press tonight there is a statement by a man whom I not only respect but revere. I worked with him for a number of years. I refer to "Bill" Carron, President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. He is a man with foresight and with far more moral courage than any right hon. Gentleman opposite. He is a man who has been pilloried for his statesmanship in British industry. That is "Bill" Carron and there is no hon. Member on either side of the House who can gainsay those attributes. He has made a remarkable contribution to British industry.
Some months ago, he presented a case for a wage increase for engineers, the basis of which was the increase in the cost of living. The application was rejected. We cannot help the feeling that that rejection was not unassociated with Government policy. However, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has very properly held a ballot to determine what action should be taken in view of the rising cost of living and the dogmatic refusal of the employers to concede any wage increases. Tonight, "Bill" Carron has given fair warning "You will reject my approaches now at your peril". This is the view of a man who has given years of statesmanlike service to industry and whose moderation has been a hallmark.
Engineers have been included in the many deputations which have come to the House about the cost of living, deputations which have come from the professional classes, the technical classes, and what we choose to call the labouring classes, not a very complimentary term and not one with which I agree, but one which is generally used. I have worked with some of these men in engineering, men who have made a major contribution to an industry which, in its turn makes the greatest contribution to our export drive. One would have expected these people to have received some consideration because of their contribution to British industry generally and to British exports and the resulting valuable contribution to our balance of payments. I was told that skilled engineers working a regular 44-hour week cannot pay their way. One of the

reasons is that they are buying their own homes, a desirable thing to do, but are now faced with increased rates of interest. This is a matter which the Government dismiss as a purely academic subject of high finance, little realising its tremendous impact upon a home which is receiving less than £10 a week after other deductions have been made. These are the factors which have now culminated in the warning of a man who is the president of a powerful trade union.
The Financial Secretary should seriously advise the Government that unless this position is controlled—and it can be controlled, as I shall explain—there will be more difficulties. There must, first, be stabilisation and an end of the pernicious pay pause and the antisocial and socially unjust climate which the Government have deliberately chosen to create by allowing the sort of profits about which we have just heard. Nor can we exclude from our consideration the Surtax payers who do not make that contribution to the nation's economic well-being which is made by the engineers, but who have benefited to the tune of £83 million. How can the Government expect wage restraint when they allow others to behave without restraint? The writing is on the wall.
Like my hon. Friend, I take no pleasure from saying that the cost of living affects the lower strata of society. My boyhood days were spent in a home where my mother was a widow and I know the hallmark of poverty at first hand. I do not need anyone to tell me about it. As I have said on many occasions, there are thousands of people who, because of the high cost of living, have had to sink their dignity and go to the National Assistance Board for a couple of shillings each week, and those who brought about this state of affairs just sit back complacently and take no action to help these people. That is just what the Financial Secretary is doing. His belly is well filled, his back is well clothed, and his home is well appointed.
I do not regard it as social justice that there are thousands of people who are feeling the vicious impact of the ever-increasing cost of living. The resultant poverty is familiar to me, and as long as I am privileged to come to


this revered Chamber I shall go on repeating the injustice being done to these poor people. I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. His action in debating this subject deserves the credit not only of this House, but of the nation, and he is to be congratulated on attacking the Government for the short-sighted social policies to which they so passionately cling.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I am glad of the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayord (Mr. Dodds), who has raised the question of the increasing cost of living. I do not think that anyone can look at the way in which people are living today, and at what is happening in the world, without being conscious of the impact being made on people week after week by the various increases continually being announced in the Press. These increases are not hidden. They appear as headline news.
An example of this is the recent 10 per cent. increase in the cost of electricity. This is wholly and solely the result of Government policy. On Tuesday, we had a long interchange with the Secretary of State for Scotland about 'the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board having increased its prices. This has been done not because the board is losing money—in fact it is showing a substantial profit—but because the financial pundits think that the profit is not big enough. At a time when people are being told that they must not ask for more wages, when many of them are having their wages pegged and are unable to take action to improve them, the Government decide to introduce a policy which leads to increased electricity charges.
The Government are unable to wait six months or a year before introducing such a policy. They do not consider waiting until conditions are more favourable for bringing in these increased prices. Surely when an undertaking is making a profit there is no need for such measures while a pay pause is in operation? What kind of psychology are the Government displaying? What understanding have they of the way in which people react to this kind of situation?
This policy of increased prices is also being followed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and again it is not because the board is losing money. One would have thought that the Government, having asked for a pay pause and a limitation on incomes, would have said that they would defer the increases for six months or a year. What harm would have been done? The fact is that these increases are being made to meet the long-term policy of the Government with regard to capital expenditure and the return on capital. But the Government do not even do that. They expect the workers not to do anything about it, which is amazing.
One could go through the whole gamut of rising prices in Scotland—gas, electricity, coal, and a host of other things. When I was in Edinburgh last weekend I learned that there is to be a substantial increase in transport charges. It is not good enough for the Financial Secretary, as he did last Tuesday, to present a set of figures to the House and say:
They are remarkable and provide the clearest indication I have seen … of the extent to which inflation has been due to increases in personal incomes which have increased more rapidly than the volume of production"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1151.]
The figures do not do anything of the kind. They were asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), who asked by how much salaries had had to rise to take account of the cost of living. In the first column of the table of figures which were given we see the rises in the cost of living as measured by the consumers' price index which shows an increase of 30 since 1951—from 100 to 130. The next column gives us the increase in average wages and salaries. Average wages and salaries do not cover the whole of personal incomes by a long way. But the hon. Gentleman said that it was a clear indication of the way in which the present increases were due to increases in personal incomes.
I wish to make one or two points about this table. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that 3·6 of the 6·4 points by which the cost of living had increased during the past year were the direct or indirect consequence of the increase in personal incomes outstripping


national production. The Financial Secretary could hardly contain himself. He was jumping up and down to say how good were these figures. They do not show the increase in personal incomes but in average wages and salaries. This means that they do not apply to hundreds and thousands—to millions of people.
We spent last Friday afternoon discussing the pensions of Service pensioners which have not been increased for years. But these pensions are part of their incomes and their total incomes have not gone up by the figure shown in this column because a large element has been stable for ten years. That would apply to hundreds of other people in receipt of pensions which they must supplement by going out to work. Neither do the figures apply to people living on small fixed incomes, returns from investments, and so on.
Like all averages they are very misleading. We might say that the average age of hon. Members present in the Chamber is 45. The truth might be that no one is over 45 and a considerable number might be below. But some would be above and that is how averages are worked out. I cannot accept an average as a good test. I know of hundreds of thousands of lower-paid workers who have not had this increase in their pay during the last ten years.
On the other hand, a number of people have probably had more. We cannot determine how people are living by a set of figures of this character; we must go into the homes of the people to see how they are living when they are dependent on small fixed incomes or on pensions which have not changed in ten or fifteen years.

Mr. Bence: Does my hon. Friend realise that unemployment in Scotland has increased from 51,000 to 80,000 and that a large section of the working population there have had their incomes reduced?

Mr. Willis: I agree.

Sir E. Boyle: On a point of order. I do not want to be discourteous, but it is extremely difficult to hear what is said when, instead of addressing you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and speaking to where

the microphones are placed, an hon. Member speaks in the opposite direction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am bound to say that it was not easy from this part of the Chamber to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I am sure that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend was talking about the increase in incomes in the United Kingdom. I pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of unemployed in Scotland from 51,000 or 52,000 to 80,000 and that there has been a terrific reduction in incomes in a large circle of working-class homes in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will come to that later. In the meantime, is this an intimation that the Financial Secretary will tell his usual little joke?

Sir E. Boyle: No, it is not.

Mr. Willis: I am simply making the point that the average does not necessarily apply to everyone.
But the biggest omission is that the workers are entitled to share in the increased productivity of the nation—a fact which the Financial Secretary will probably accept. We therefore have to allow for the fact that productivity has increased during the past eleven years and that the worker is entitled to his share in this productivity, which substantially reduces the difference in these so-called review figures.
When we consider inflation we have also to consider a host of other factors —the extent to which credit is being created and to which capital expenditure is being undertaken on a vast scale. To select these figures and then to say that because the average salary has outstripped a certain level we are passing into a period of inflation which makes it necessary for the Government to adopt policies which have resulted in an increase in the cost of living, in my view is misleading.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Is the hon. Member arguing that because many workers are not getting the average


wage, therefore the better-paid workers ought to share with them their higher wages? For example, Ford motor workers earned last year an average of £23 8s. 4d. a week. Those are the official figures given by the company. The average industrial worker last year earned £15 6s. a week. The Ford worker is, therefore, getting about £7 a week more than the average industrial worker. The agricultural worker is getting only about £10 a week. Is it therefore the hon. Member's contention that workers who are paid better than the average ought to take lower wages so that the more poorly paid workers should be paid more?
Bearing in mind one other factor——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order. I think that the intervention has already been on the long side.

Mr. Willis: What I was arguing arose from an exchange in the House on Tuesday concerning the manner in which the cost of living has risen. It has risen more in the past twelve months during the period of the so-called pay pause than at any other time since 1951. There was an exchange. The answer indicated that 2·2 points in the increase are due to the current shortage of potatoes and other seasonal factors.
It has been pointed out that the Government have helped to create the shortage of potatoes. It was said that 0·6 of a point was due to increased rents and rates. The remaining 3·6 points were due to factors associated with the fact that personal incomes were rising faster than national production. The Financial Secretary was delighted with this. He told us how revealing these figures were. However, the figures are not so revealing as he suggested. They certainly do not give the picture of the cost of living. They omit hundreds of thousands of families. We always have to accept average figures with the knowledge of what we are doing.
I have now reached the point where I was submitting to the Financial Secretary that this table makes no allowance at all for increased productivity, in which the worker is entitled to share. Therefore, his wages ought to rise more than the cost of living if he is to have his share.

Mr. D. Jones: The House should be aware that the White Paper issued by the Treasury makes it perfectly plain that the cost of living and increased productivity will not be the deciding factors in determining any increase in wages.

Mr. Willis: That supports my point. Increases in wages must not simply take into account increases in the cost of living. They must also take into account the increased productivity and what share of that increased productivity should be given to different groups of workers. At different times the increased share will be greater for some workers than for others, otherwise there would be no flexibility. There would be very little justification for the trade union movement if that was not possible. Part of the nurses' case at present is that they are now at the point where their share should be larger than somebody else's.
The figures and arguments presented on Tuesday about the cost of living were not relevant. What is more relevant is how different kinds of people are living. The impact of the increases in the prices of electricity, coal and vegetables will be far heavier upon the people in whose budget these items figure larger than on people in whose budget these items do not figure so greatly. Today the things which are going up so rapidly, and have gone up rapidly, are things Which people cannot avoid buying.
These are the things that people with the lowest incomes have to pay for. We have had increased National Insurance and National Health Service charges. We have had all kinds of charges imposed by the Government—for electricity, gas, etc.—all of which fall much harder on the man earning £8 or £9 a week than on the man earning £19 or £20 a week. Obviously, in these circumstances, the people at the lower level will suffer.
This is a serious situation. The Government should at least try to protect the people with smaller incomes by taking the action available to them and preventing this burden, brought about by their own policy, from falling upon these people. That is a fair request to make. It is a logical request to make when the Government are pursuing a pay pause policy. My criticism of the


Government is that they have done nothing to prevent this burden falling on the people with the lowest incomes while pursuing this policy. They could do something about it. There is no need for an increased differential rent, or for an increase in the price of coal that will be coming in Scotland. When the Coal Board has been losing money for 13 or 14 years, surely it is not imperative for the Government to increase coal prices at a time when they are telling people that they must not have more wages.
The same applies to the increase in electricity charges. The electricity boards have been operating very successfully and making very large profits in many cases for the past twelve or thirteen years. Why, then, should the Government, at the time when they are telling people that they must not ask for more wages, put up the prices for the purpose of long-term policy?
In this there is no logic, rhyme or reason. These burdens fall more heavily on Scots people than on those living further South. The general level of incomes in Scotland is lower. We have a very large burden of unemployment and, as the climate is much more severe, more coal, gas and electricity are needed. We have a right to be concerned, and to point out to the Government that the general rise in prices has taken place since 1951, while the Tory Party has been in power, and while, in general, the terms of trade have been in our favour.
Those favourable terms of trade presented an opportunity to strengthen our economic basis and stabilise the cost of living, but that opportunity has been frittered away by the Government, first, by five years of a glorious beanfeast, with little idea on the Government's part of what they were doing, followed by a stop-and-start policy, not in accordance with the national needs but to win elections. We have the right to be critical and, of course, the Government have the right to answer those criticisms—if they can.

9.0 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: It is undeniable that an increase in the cost of living falls more heavily, proportionately, on the lower-paid worker than on the

better-paid man. The increase in the price of coal, gas and electricity affects the old and those living in the North more than it does the young and those living in the South. That is undeniable, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr Willis) then reasoned that the averages that have been quoted do not represent the true facts because, he said, there is no such thing as an average person. He said that if the average age of hon. Members were 54, there was probably nobody of that age in the House.
It must be remembered that if the average industrial wage last year was £15 6s. and there were a certain number of people below that average, there must have been a corresponding number above it. That is what an average is— —

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. It depends how far below they were or how far above. A small number might be a long way above the average, and a much larger number fairly well below it.

Sir C. Osborne: An average is a matter of numbers and weighting.
What hon. Members opposite must face is that the last Inland Revenue returns, and I speak from memory only, showed that personal incomes amounted to £13,500 million, of which £830 million went to the Surtax payers— those earning more than £2000 a year. A few weeks ago I asked the Chancellor what would be the result if all income in excess of £2,000 a year net were taken from the Surtax payers and given to all the rest who were getting less. The answer was that the rest would get an extra 2s. 10d. a week.
Therefore, if the money is to come from the Surtax payer, the amount that can be given to the lower-paid worker to help him meet the increased cost of living is very limited——

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman said that would be the result if that money was redistributed to everyone getting under £2,000 a year, but that would include people getting £1,850 a year. If the distribution of that money were limited to old-age pensioners, how much would each old-age pensioner get?

Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Member puts the question to the Chancellor of


the Exchequer I am sure that he will be given the correct answer.

Mr. Willis: That is not the argument. The argument is that the Government should be taking steps, by means of their own policies, to prevent increases in the cost of living.

Sir C. Osborne: But increases in the cost of living are in the main due to the costs of production and distribution. The White Paper issued a year ago stated that of our total industrial costs 62 per cent. were for direct or indirect labour. Therefore, it is not the Government who have put up costs.

Mr. Bence: Come, off it.

Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Member says, "Come off it". I will remind him what has happened in the coal mining industry. In the old days, when the miners were paid very low wages, coal was cheap, but now that we have given them a handsome wage coal is dear. If we pay high wages, what those wages produce must cost more. Therefore, since 62 per cent. of our total costs come from either direct or indirect labour costs, it is not the Government who fix the cost of living; it is what we pay ourselves for doing the work we have to do.

Mr. Bence: About eighteen months ago I bought a French salad shaker for 1s. 9d. Since then there has been a sales campaign all round the country and it is now sold everywhere for 8s. 6d.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) make a speech about I.C.I.?

Sir C. Osborne: Yes, I will. I am saying that if the workers who earn less than £10 a week are to have their incomes increased to meet the increased cost of living, ultimately the money can come only from the higher-paid workers. The figure quoted by the Ford Motor Company is that its average hourly-paid worker was paid £22 8s. 4d. a week last year.

Mr. Bence: The highest-paid worker?

Sir C. Osborne: The average worker. The average industrial wage over the whole country, on the other hand, was £15 6s. Therefore, if we are going to help the lower-paid industrial workers

people like the Ford hourly-paid workers must take that much less. Furthermore, if we have to include—as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was including—the old-age pensioners, the disabled, and those in the most dire need, not only must the Ford workers take less for what they are doing but the average industrial worker throughout the country must take a good deal less.

Mr. Bence: What about the stockbrokers?

Sir C. Osborne: Please be relevant. It is utterly impossible to take great sums from the relatively few very rich people and make a material difference to the lower-paid workers. There is little we can do by sheer redistribution of the national income to help the poorest.
The great complaint among skilled workers of all ratings is that the differentials have been narrowed too much. The amount of reward in salary, wage or profit is getting so small compared with what the unskilled worker receives that today there is insufficient encouragement and inducement for men to train and take responsibility.
This was said to me when I met the nurses in my constituency. They said that the skilled people are not getting nearly enough compared with the unskilled workers. If one redistributes to the point when there is not adequate return for skill and responsibility one destroys the efficiency of the economic machine by which we live. The poor would become poorer and, as a result of that scheme of redistribution, people would be poorer instead of better off. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, when speaking on behalf of the poorest section of the community and saying how they had to carry an increasing burden as the cost of living rose, should realise that if he wants absolute and complete equality of income——

Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend did not say that.

Sir C. Osborne: Surely that is the plea the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made. I am trying to point out that such complete equality would not result in the old-age pensioner and the person living on a small fixed income being better off. It would slow the


economic machine down to such an extent that we should all be that much desperately poorer.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) certainly misunderstood my remarks. I did not say at any time that I advocated the redistribution of everything we have. I said that, by their own policies, the Government should take what action they can to protect the lower-paid people. The second point I made was that as we increase our production each year so the workers are entitled to share in the benefit. I also said that as this increased wealth is shared out it should be done in a flexible manner because, naturally, certain groups would require a bigger share than others. The point is that we must have flexibility about all this so that there are varying degrees in this sharing-out process.

Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We shall look in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT to get the matter straight. I thought that he was saying that the average figures of income that have been given were not correct in their application to certain people. He said that there were hundreds and thousands of people who had not benefited to the extent shown by those figures. He then suggested that the Government should do something for these people.

Mr. Willis: To protect them.

Sir C. Osborne: The only way to protect one section of the nation against an increase in the cost of living is to take something from another group and give it to the first.

Mr. Bence: Really!

Sir C. Osborne: Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that the Government and the nation have only a certain amount of income—the amount which the nation earns. The Government cannot redistribute between the various sections of the country more than we earn and produce. As I say, the only way to protect the poorer section, for whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East pleaded, would be—if it were to be done in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish—to take something from another group.

Mr. Bence: What about prices?

Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East means price control, if one controls prices one must either work that section of the economy at a loss or say to those who are working in that section—for instance, coal—"You will be paid less for the work you are doing." These are the two simple alternatives the Government would have.

Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) seems to be talking as though the amount of wealth available was a fixed sum. Does he not realise that it expands or contracts? The basis of our argument against the Government is that their kind of policy has resulted in our economy scarcely growing at all. If production expanded the standards of life would also expand.

Sir C. Osborne: That is true, of course, as far as it goes; but at any given moment we can redistribute only what we have. Our economic growth depends upon our ability to sell what we produce. It was no use the National Coal Board two years ago producing millions of tons of coal which it could not sell, which it then dumped into unused quarries at a loss of £1 a ton, and which had later to be brought back again at the cost of another £1 a ton. It is no use producing goods one cannot sell. An expanding economy is no good unless it is an efficient economy.
We must sell in the world one third of everything we produce in order to pay for the 50 per cent. of foodstuffs we import and the nearly 100 per cent. of raw materials we must have to keep our economic machine going. No one can compel the foreigner to buy the goods we produce. Higher quality and good prices decide that. It is upon the standard of efficiency of our economic machine that the life of the country depends.
If we are to get men to acquire skills and take responsibility we must pay them adequately for what they do. We want greater differentials, not the smaller ones for which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was pleading.

Mr. Bence: No pay pause.

Mr. Lawson: A moment or so ago, the hon. Gentleman spoke in terms which suggested to me that he was under the impression that we could not induce men to seek to equip themselves for skilled work. This is not true. There are thousands of youngsters desperately anxious to become skilled tradesmen, but there are no jobs for them as skilled tradesmen. Every year, we are turning down hundreds of youngsters who want to go to university. We turn them down because there are no places for them. This is the nub of our contention. The facilities available in our society are not adequate to meet the needs of our youngsters or adults either. We are not growing rapidly enough and because we are not growing rapidly enough we are not able to keep our prices down to compete with other countries.

Sir C. Osborne: There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]—but it is nothing like the whole truth. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East urges that the poorer section of the community should be helped, I agree with him. He wanted them to be protected. They should be helped, he said, because the cost of living falls more heavily upon them. That is a fair plea. However, this can be done only in one of two ways. We can increase our national productivity greatly. This cannot be done by the Government. It is done by management and workers together, and it will not be done by having strikes as there have been at the Ford Motor Co.— 69 stoppages in 32 weeks. The Government are not responsible for that. It will be done only by greater efficiency in our industry and by co-operation between management and workers to get the maximum out of our economic resources and the highest possible quality of manufactured goods at the lowest possible price.
The second way in which the protection for which the hon. Gentleman pleaded can be afforded is a straight redistribution of the national income. I have tried to show that, if we indulge to any extent in this method for helping the poorest, we shall discourage the men and women who must take responsibility and acquire skills to make the machine work.

Mr. Ross: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said in the last

few seconds, but on the question of our inability to redistribute he goes completely haywire. He will be aware that, because of the provisions of last year's Budget, during the coming year we are doing a measure of redistributing. We are allowing a certain section of the population to have an increased disposable income of £83 million. That section is not the poorest but the wealthiest section of the community. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, by his admissions, has shown us that redistribution can take place. If he thinks it wrong to redistribute in favour of the poor, what epithets would he apply to redistribtuion which he says exists in favour of the well-to-do? Does not he appreciate that in order to get the co-operation which he and I think desirable, the sort of redistribution that we are having at the moment completely destroys that possibility?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of an intervention is to elucidate something in the current speech. It is an abuse of debate to make a speech in the middle of another.

Sir C. Osborne: I was not saying that it was wrong to redistribute. I was not making a moral judgment about it. I was merely trying to put forward practical statistical facts.
In repeating the reply given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago, I showed that, if everything taken from the Surtax payer over £2,000 a year net were redistributed to the rest of the people, it would make 2s. 10d. a week difference to them. This is not a moral judgment but a statistical fact. There is therefore a limit to the amount that we can give to the poorest by redistribution unless we are to damage the incentives to those who take responsibility and who have the skill for making the machine work. If we do that, we shall run into the danger of making the machine break down.
Even Communist countries have differentials much greater than those in this country. They do not run on absolute equality. The last time that I was in Russia I found that the chairman of the scientific committee was paid far more money net than anyone in this country, since the Russians have no Surtax, like we have. Their Income Tax is 13 per cent. flat, whatever may be


one's income. Therefore, a share redistribution cannot do for the poor what the hon. Gentleman wants it to do.
What both sides of the House must do is this. We must ensure that the goods which we produce, and which we must sell abroad to maintain even our present standard of living, must be cheaper and better in quality than they have been or we shall not sell abroad. When considering our standard of living, our costs and the poverty of certain sections of his country, I beg hon. Members to remember how lucky we are as a nation. The United Nations' per capita income figure given about six months ago shows that the average income in this country is £387 a year. In India it is £19, in Pakistan £24 and in Nigeria, £30. If we are to have real equality, international socialism, and if all wages throughout the world were average, they would not come to 50s. a week.
Hon. Members plead for equality. I remember the then Mr. Herbert Morrison saying years ago that national Socialism was not enough and that we must have international Socialism—a wonderful ideal. I want hon. Members to face the reality of it. If the world's wealth were redistributed in the way that the hon. Member has been pleading, wages in this country would be less than 50s. a week.
Hon. Members opposite should not let their hearts run away with their heads. Certainly we ought to do a great deal more for those with lower incomes, for the pensioner, the disabled and the like, but we cannot do it on the cheap. We cannot play the good Samaritan and let somebody else pay. If we are to redistribute the country's income to help the poorest of the poor, the better-paid worker must pay his share.
I beg hon. Members opposite to go back to men like the Ford workers, who have been getting on average over £22 a week and who are striking for more, and to tell them that if the men getting £10 get more, the Ford men must take less. If hon. Members opposite will face those realities, I will come with them.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has succeeded in stand

ing the debate upon its head. My hon. Friends have endeavoured to raise the point of the rise in the cost of living and in doing so have tried to restore the balance not only in this House, but in the country, where we are invariably preoccupied with incomes and with production and not with how that income is able to be spread out and what happens in the sphere of consumption.
Our complaint is that over recent months in particular, we have continued to emphasise the economic aspects of wages and incomes, which, as the hon. Member's contribution has shown, are the opposite side of the coin. We continue to talk about incomes and the pay pause without paying sufficient attention to the rise in the cost of living or to what happens at the point of consumption.
The hon. Member has made the mistake of suggesting that hon. Members who have spoken from this side are preoccupied with equality. This debate is about equity. It is a feeling of gross unfairness who has animated my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) to initiate this debate, for which we are all grateful, and which has been the major theme throughout the speeches from this side.
The hon. Member for Louth is in the same difficulty as his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. In seeking to make a case the hon. Member has to deal with averages. That is precisely the difficulty of the Treasury, that in making a policy it deals with averages. When it comes to dealing with the ordinary man or woman, whether a housewife or an old-age pensioner, in our constituencies, there is no such thing as the average. Everybody has a different basis. For that reason, our legislation is always a blunt instrument. It is difficult, also, to take action on averages.
I warn the hon. Member for Louth that although he may know that the average depth of a river is only 4 ft. and he happens to be 5ft. 8 in., if ever he wants to cross he ought not to be governed by the figure of average depth, because he might drown in the process.

Sir C. Osborne: I can swim.

Mr. Pavitt: What we on this side are pleading for is not so much the worker


in productive industry, but the housewife, the person who, at the end of the week has to lay out the money, but who finds that in spite of the Government's pay pause, whereby the amount of money remains the same, prices continually rise. I refer in particular to the people with young families—for example, to the housewife who has been earning and whose family has had two incomes and whose hire purchase has, perhaps, grown more than it should. When the family is young, the housewife has to look after them. Consequently, when prices rise, their incidence is unfair upon this section of the community.
The problem of the old-age pensioners has been mentioned. How deplorable it was to learn from the reports in the newspapers this week of the annual conference of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations about pensioners taking one shoe to be repaired because the cost of leather and repairs means they cannot afford to have two shoes repaired at once. It is this sort of thing which the Government should take into consideration in the action which they pursue to maintain a stable economy and prevent inflation. There is not only the question of incomes; there is also the question of how best to secure value for money in the laying out of incomes.
The problem of differentials has arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed to some of the special problems in Scotland. In London, we have been faced since 1957 with colossal increases in rents, due to the 1957 Rent Act, not only on decontrolled houses but over the whole range of rented properties. People living in industrial areas like mine are faced with these increases. A much larger proportion of their income is now having to go on rents, and that is not compensated by a 2½ per cent. pay increase. A constituent of mine came to my advice bureau last Friday. He had three children. He had a good job and is earning £11 10s. per week. His rent is £4 15s. It is extremely difficult for a man with that kind of pay to say "For the sake of the country's economy, I can ask for a pay increase of only 2½ per cent. or 6d. in the £".
From time to time in connection with the pay pause we have debated the way

in which we have got to maintain steady prices and a steady account. But, whereas the Government take very definite action to keep down wages, they take very little action to make sure that the cost of commodities does not rise to undue proportions. There is the question of equity—not just the £83 million to the Surtax payers but that fact that £19 million of that was in respect of unearned income. It is true, as the hon. Member for Louth has said, that the spreadover does not make a great deal of difference financially to our 52 million people, but it makes a difference to their intense feeling about being treated unfairly in difficult circumstances. I can assure the House that if anyone is prepared to give any of the old-age pensioners in my area another 2s. 10d. a week, that would not be chickenfeed to them. It would be an extremely important contribution and enable them sometimes to stay up a little later instead of going to bed with a hot-water bottle at half-past seven because they cannot afford coal—which is still happening in 1962. It is on things of this kind that we want action by the Government.
We recently approved the giving of £78 million to farmers because of the difficulty over the price of meat. Hon. Members who went home and discussed this matter with their wives found themselves standing in the dock trying to explain how it was that the farmers had had to be subsidised to the extent of another £78 million when the price of meat had never gone down during the last five years but had only gone up. We appreciate that there are technical arguments on this, but the housewife is not interested in them. She is interested only in whether her husband's pay packet will feed the family for the week, and she looks to the Government for protection in such matters.
The nurses are told that they can have a rise of only 6d. in the £because the country cannot afford more. Yet at the same time everything that a nurse buys goes up in price because the cost of advertising must be passed on to the consumer. If the nurse is fortunate enough to get leisure time, and is not too tired to look at television, she learns that she can look a little lovelier each day if she spends money on certain commodities. The whole impact of


creating a seller's market is that those who are poorly paid are encouraged to spend money on things that they might not otherwise think so necessary or desirable. Naturally, a nurse will suffer a sense of injustice when she has to pay the high prices which £1,000 million of television advertising brings, and which she cannot match up to in terms of her pay packet.
If the Government are really serious about this, they should be prepared to take action on prices as they are prepared to take action on pay. It is their responsibility to take action to keep down prices, especially the prices of essential commodities. Yet, at a time when there is this feeling of unfairness among the wage earners, the cost of living has risen by two points. There is no way in which the consumer can protect himself. That is Why we complain about the way we are unable, in this House, to give adequate time to the subject. This is a purely accidental debate. But there is no sense of urgency on the part of the Government in dealing with what hon. Members have shown to be an urgent matter.
The production workers have strong pressure groups in their trade unions, capable of adopting sanctions at times in order to try to get benefits for themselves. The employers and producers have their own strong associations, such as the F.B.I. But when a consumer is charged an unfair price for an inadequate or poor product, what sanction has he? How can he possibly make any impact? What pressure can he exert to bring down prices to a reasonable level?
As is so often the case, voluntary associations have had to lead the way. There is the Consumers Association's Which? and there is Choice, put out by the B.B.C. They endeavour to keep the cost of living down, but they have very inadequate resources to pit against those of the forces which are trying to keep prices up. If the Government intend to tackle this matter, I hope that they will be prepared not just to do so in general terms, but to give specific help to those parts of the community who are hit most by the cost of living. This is not a matter only of geographical areas, but of the categories which have already been mentioned.
In recent years there has been an increasing trend away from negotiations purely on wages, hours and conditions, to what are called in modern jargon "fringe benefits". The Government consider whether "fringe benefits" might not be given to sections of the community like those living on fixed pensions, on whom the cost of living rises weigh most heavily.
I am encouraged to be somewhat selective by the hon. Member for Louth, because he was very selective in the averages which he chose. He chose his cases, as we all do, to give his argument maximum weight. I very much liked the kite which he flew about higher-paid workers giving something to lower-paid workers. There are a number of variations on that theme which are interesting.
For one brief period, before I became a politician and when I was idealistic, I joined a national average group which did precisely that for some time. I would be only too pleased if Mr. Cotton and Mr. Clore were prepared to join with Members of Parliament to have some kind of equalisation. Perhaps they could share some of their wealth with some of ours, and even help hon. Members who, like myself, do just one job as a politician in the House and try to keep their costs of living down and bring some happiness into their families and not worry their wives too much about the cost of living.
We are asking that this debate should initiate some fresh thinking and, more important, fresh action on the part of the Government so that we get away from the obsession that when there is pressure the first thing to happen is to have a cut down. There is always a cut-down of investment when there is pressure, but I must not follow that theme too far or I shall be doing precisely what I accused the hon. Member for Louth of doing— standing the debate on its head and talking about economics.
We want something which will provide a feeling of fairness in the community. If it is necessary in the national interest to adopt economic policies which are unpopular, let there be a feeling that no section of the community is being penalised for the benefit of another. For this to be done effectively, we need consideration of the factors which affect


the cost-of-living index; we need something to be done in the realm of consumer protection in the standard, quality and price of essential commodities. We need that especially if we are to avoid over-inflation of prices so that goods are put out of the reach of people with ordinary jobs because of over-selling and over-advertising and all the other things which are inevitably finally paid for by the person who buys the commodity in question.
It is those things which we want the Government to consider instead of merely tinkering with the problem and setting up a committee which will report in four or five years. We want some positive action to help the housewife, the families with young children and the old people, those who make up the bulk of the community.

9.44 p.m

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The hon. Member far Louth (Sir C. Osborne) re-enunciated at least two fundamental truths tonight in recognising that increasing prices and the increasing cost of living hit the poorest sections of the community and that the impact is heavier the further one gets—paradoxically in a way—from the Government who cause those things. There was a great deal of truth in what he said, as was illustrated by the remark's of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
At least two differentials, which are so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Louth, have been clearly established in the matter of the standards of living as between the communities in London and the Midlands and those not only merely in Scotland but even more drastically in the far north of Scotland. I assure the hon. Member that to go further away from Westminster and the activities of the Government is not to escape the effects and impacts of their policies anything like in proportion to the distance. When one reaches my constituency, one finds that we feel the impact of Government policy and deliberate acts of Government policy far more than any other section of 'the community, or any other area of Great Britain.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) therefore arguing that the better-paid workers of London and the Midlands should forgo some of their wages in order to help the poorer-paid workers of Scotland?

Mr. MacMillan: One of the tragedies is that the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes these ancient fallacies which he argues with such vigour, as though they were true. More than fifty years ago Labour leaders were being told that it all the money in the country—and here again comes this word money, which is not to be confused with wealth—was distributed among everybody, working-class people would be only 6d. or 1s. better off. It would take a long time to discuss this, but it has been argued on innumerable occasions.
We realise that to bring about a higher standard of living there must be increased productivity, people must get bigger shares from the cake, we must have a bigger cake, and so on. At the moment we are arguing the case made by my hon. Friends, that not only must we endeavour to produce the greatest possible justice within the expanding limits of our economy, but that it must appear to all classes that we are concerned with social justice and decency in the treatment of all our people.
I would not confine any benefits that could arise from such a policy conducted and prosecuted in a sensible, systematic, way to any one class. I would not confine those benefits only to old-age pensioners or to the poorer sections of the community. There is a case for a differential, but there is no doubt that the lowest-paid worker has been left behind in the advances which have been made as a result of the activities of workers not only in London but in the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland.
For example, the nurses have been left far behind. It is no good asking them and the teachers to produce more. It must be remembered that when talking about the nursing profession we are not talking about midwives only, and it is therefore difficult to ask nurses to produce more. It is not possible to measure increased productivity among groups of people like teachers and nurses.


The hon. Member for Louth has disappeared and I trust that he has taken his arguments with him.

Sir C. Osborne: I was about to leave the Chamber. I have one or two things to do outside the House. Having been a Member 'for some time, the hon. Gentleman should realise that it is not possible to be present in the Chamber all the time.

Mr. MacMillan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is never discourteous, and I apologise if I suggested any such thing.
The further north we go into Scotland and into the Highland areas, the more we feel the impact of these deliberate acts of Government policy which have led to a rise in the cost of living. This is more apparent now than ever before, because it is leading to a disastrous depopulation of many areas in the north. It is forcing the younger people to leave those areas, and even those who are left are not able to continue the indigenous industries because of the increased cost of transport, increased freight charges, and so on. These increases are having a disastrous effect in those areas.
The Financial Secretary knows these things to be true. We are not in conflict with the Government about their lack of knowledge of the facts, but because they are not prepared to take action to deal with the especially difficult situation in the areas which are particularly badly hit by their policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to the difficulty of getting more than one chip with his fish. I apologise if I appear to have borrowed that chip and to be carrying it on my shoulder. In an area like my constituency the catching of fish is one of the major economic activities. Attempts to develop that industry are frustrated because of the high freight charges arising from deliberate acts of Government policy. That is one of the reasons why we carry that solitary "chip" on our shoulders and feel that the Government, while aware of the problem, are quite unwilling to do anything to mitigate its impact upon our people.
That does not apply only to fishermen, to the cost of their gear and re

quirements and the cost of exporting their catches to the mainland markets and to the fish and chip shops. It affects equally the agricultural community in those areas; the farmers and the crofters who have to export cattle and import seed and agricultural equipment and other requirements. It applies to the community in general.
If we look at the difference between the cost of living in the Outer Isles and places like Inverness and Glasgow we find that there is an increase of anything from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. In the food ranges, most consumer goods cost anything from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. more. My hon. Friend referred to individual items. I will not mention plums again tonight. But, taking a wide range of individual commodities, essential Things—not luxuries because people do not go in much for luxuries in the Western Isles—one finds that prices rise well above prices in other parts of Scotland.

Mr. Bence: Is my hon. Friend aware that one need not go so far afield from Glasgow as the Western Isles in order to discover the kind of examples to which he has referred? In the new town of Cumbernauld which is sixteen miles from Glasgow, because of the lack of shop facilities, housewives, as they have told me, have to pay a ld., 2d. or 3d. more for everything compared with what they would have to pay in Glasgow or Falkirk.

Mr. MacMillan: That is true, and it affects different areas in different ways. I was pointing out the rough difference between the costs of these items in areas like Glasgow and Stornoway and elsewhere in the Western Isles.
A large part of the cost is represented by the cost of transport, particularly freight charges, and the Government have been aware of this for many years. Despite the fact that their policies have a considerable impact on those areas, no special steps of any kind have been taken to deal with this type of differential. When the hon. Member for Louth was talking about differentials he might have kept these things in mind. This has been reflected officially in the acceptance by the valuation appeal courts which were so convinced by the arguments about the cost of living that


in the Stornoway area and in the Island of Lewis they reduced valuations by about 10 per cent. That was not the full recognition of the economic basis on which demands for reduction were argued but 10 per cent. is a fairly substantial figure.
If we examine one or two individual commodities we find that bread, for example—by no means a luxury, but a necessity in every home—in the smaller islands such as Barra can be as dear as 1s. 5d. a loaf. Sometimes it is more. That does not mean that the shopkeeper is profiteering. He may have a smaller profit margin than the baker or grocer selling bread in Scottish cities. It is because he has to pay the high cost of transport and freight. If one goes to the only town or burgh of any size in the Islands one would pay about 11d, a pint for milk, for local milk as well as imported milk, but to a large extent the price is settled by the price of the imported milk which includes transport costs.
Soft drinks, which have attracted the attention of the Government again recently, would cost 10d. to 1s. a bottle in Glasgow. But already in many areas in the Western Isles the price is about Is. 6d. and 1s. 7d. a bottle. Now it will probably soar to somewhere around Is. 10d. or possibly 2s. The increase is never restricted to the 10 or 15 per cent. when it comes to the retail price.
Another item touched on a number of times tonight— which is a considerable understatement—concerns oil heaters and the fuel used in them. Here again, largely as a result of Government policy, prices have risen. The cost of money borrowed by the Hydro-Electric Board has risen because of the Government policy, with the result that the Board has not been able to provide electricity supplies in islands such as Barra and North Uist. People are thrown back on oil fuel of various kinds. Because of the burdens which they are carrying under the present Government policy, the cost of oil fuel for domestic purposes, for agricultural purposes and certainly for transport in the area has risen, and the cost of living has been sent soaring in this respect. In every respect, every one of these deliberate acts of Government policy is having an effect which, in the sum, has caused the

cost of living in the area to soar above even that which my hon. Friends have described as the present exorbitant cost of living in the cities.
If I make a special plea, therefore, for exceptional action in areas where the impact of Government policy is exceptional, I am asking for no more than equal treatment with other areas, not for especially favourable treatment in any way.
Every one of these things is frustrating one of the most hopeful industries in Scotland—the tourist industry. The more that transport and fuel costs rise, the higher the cost of living as we go further into the Highlands and Islands, the less likely are we to develop a tourist industry, which is such a potentially valuable and a potentially expanding industry in Scotland. The further north one goes into this paradise for tourists, the less likely one is to get tourists into the area because of these high costs, and once they have been bitten by high costs and by the other difficulties arising from them, they are even less likely to come back a second time.
My hon. Friend said that one needed four blankets in Scotland to two in England. This is a case of one wet blanket on the tourist industry's prospects. In fact, it is not a question of the weather, because in my constituency recently we have enjoyed more hours of sunshine on average per day than have most parts of Britain. It is not the weather which is endangering the development of the tourist industry but the impact of all these increased transport costs and the freight charges which arise directly from Government policy, together with the inability of the Hydro-Electric Board to supply electricity because of the high cost of borrowing the money which the Board must have for its development.
The result of all this is that we cannot retain the younger population, in particular, and there is an increased tempo of drift and depopulation in the area, with a consequent ageing of the remaining population. Eventually one reaches the point of no return at which the population is too old and cannot move and at which the young have either gone or are going, and then less and less can one retain hope in the future and an ability to restore the local economy and raise the standard of life.
Special action must be taken, as it was between 1945 and 1951, when a good example was given. If special action is not taken, the drift will continue. All the protestations of Government after Government of their desire and resolve to retain communities in the Highlands and Islands will count for nothing, and all that has been done in the past will be largely wasted endeavour and wasted resources. This is an area of great potential for the production of new wealth; it could make a greater contribution to national wealth and the national economy, provided that at this point it is given a sufficient transfusion of capital. Because of poverty and neglect through the generations, they have not been able to accumulate capital for themselves over the years. As long as capital is denied to the area and we make it impossible for new industries to develop and the indigenous industries to survive because of increasing costs, particularly of transport and freight, the more difficult it will be to retain the population.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mr. MacMillan: Finally, I will give two examples to the Financial Secretary in ordinary human terms. They are inevitably inseparable from statistics and the census. In the ten years from 1951 to 1961 in one Island in the Outer Islands, notably an island where industry is unable to develop because of the lack of electricity— I refer to the Island of Barra—the population fell by over 25 per cent. It had been falling for years before that. In the neighbouring smaller islands the population fell from 20 to 30 per cent. In the Outer Island of Lewis, with 24,000 people, the population fell by about 11 per cent. in those ten years. Between 1945 and 1951, with the policies in the Highlands, which were directed at that time by the Labour Government, aimed at stopping the drift of population and developing the potential wealth of the area, while controlling as far as possible under Government policy the cost of living, we saw a halt to the drift of population for the first time in

a century. By 1951, for the first time in generations, emigration and depopulation halted. A build-up was beginning. Since 1952 it has gone into reverse. Today the tempo and the effect of depopulation, particularly the drift away of the young and enterprising, are more marked than they have ever been in the recorded statistical history of depopulation in the Highlands.
That is very serious. It is related directly to the impact of Government policy. At this moment we have little to look forward to. The present programme of the Government seems to consist of nothing but stripping away such valuable services as nationalised road haulage and running down the railways, which in turn will throw an impossible burden upon the undeveloped and under-developed road and rail system. It will add again to the cost of living in the Highlands.
Every action of the Government in all these fields has had an especial and extra heavy impact upon these areas further away from the centres of population and further away from such facilities as railways, markets, sources of raw materials, etc. It is not much good us running away from Westminister, because things will only get worse as we got further away. The only solution seems to be when the Government themselves start running away from Westminster and a better Government take their place. They have nothing to offer by way of policy or programme, but only a counsel of despair to hold on a little longer and perhaps per ardua ad astra wonderful days will come. While other countries send men in orbit round the world, there will be plenty of ardua for us before we see the first blink of the first Government astra.

10.3 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has made a temperate and interesting speech, as he always does, and I will see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Willis: It was meant for the Financial Secretary.

Sir E. Boyle: I listened to the part of it which was meant for me. I have


no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take an interest in that part which affects him.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for seizing a very legitimate parliamentary opportunity this evening. I am sorry that we have not had a better House for this debate, but the hon. Member will appreciate that not very many hon. Members on either side realised that this debate was due to take place.

Mr. D. Jones: There has been a good House on this side.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that many other hon. Member would have attended and might even have taken part had they known that the debate was to take place.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford said early in his speech that he did not want to make too many party points. I was rather reminded, when he said that, knowing what happens when we debate these subjects, of the remark by Dr. Johnson's friend Edwards, who said that he tried to be a philosopher but that cheerfulness kept breaking in. Understandably, panty points have broken in frim time to time during the proceedings.
I will begin by answering in general, as best I can, some of the speeches which have been made, and then I want to say something rather more consecutive about prices and incomes in the concluding parts of my remarks. To take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford, I do not want to say a great deal about 1951, which is a long time ago. However, it is only fair to remember, if one is talking about Korea and prices, what was the gravamen of our charge at that time, namely, that it was a pity that stocks had been allowed to run down so much before the Korean War, with the result that we had to stock up again just when prices were rising very rapidly. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition at that time really denied that. He recognised that there had been a very sharp movement in the terms of trade against this country in 1951 and the low level of stocks must have affected that.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Financial Secretary appreciate what he is now saying?

He is saying that the stocks went down absolutely to their lowest, so we had to buy on a rising market. Despite that this country had the lowest increase of prices of any country during that period because we had a Labour Government to introduce controls.

Sir E. Boyle: Whatever the relative position of other countries, no other country in Western Europe had a 14 per cent. price rise in 1951, as I remember. At the end of 1950—I was fighting a by-election at that time and, naturally, I remember the figures—wholesale prices were 17 per cent. higher than the year before and it took the next year to work through.

Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman talk about wholesale prices?

Sir E. Boyle: I said that wholesale prices at the end of 1950 were 17 per cent. higher than at the end of 1949. This worked through to a very rapid increase in retail prices during the course of the next year.
The point that the hon. Gentleman made was about wages and prices during the 1950s. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford was not merely speaking about prices, but about the movement of wages and prices during the 1950s. On that point, I am tempted to quote what the Leader of the House said in the debate on the Address, because I think that it is very relevant to any debate on prices. My right hon. Friend said:
The facts are these, and they are quite simple. From July, 1945, to October, 1951, the average weekly rate of earnings went up from £6 Is. 4d. to £8 6s., a rise of 37 per cent., but there was an increase of 40 per cent. in the cost of living which wiped it out. In the last ten years the rate has gone from £8 6s. to £15 Is. 4d., a rise of 80 per cent. as against a 35 per cent. increase in the cost of living.— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 929.]
It is a perfectly clear point and one that I have often made in debates in this House. On the one band, we on this side take the greatest pleasure in the fact that real wages have risen substantially during the 1950s. There is no inconsistency between taking that pleasure and in believing that we will achieve a more rapid increase in living standards if increases in personal incomes are matched by increases in productivity.


The hon. Gentleman finally referred to profits. If I may, I would recommend him to paragraph 55 of this year's Economic Survey, which says quite clearly:
Company profits reached a peak about the beginning of 1960 and fell quite steeply thereafter. Movements in tax payments lag substantially behind movements in profits; and between 1960 and 1961 company profits rose by £122 million. … In 1961, however, company profits were £200 million lower than in 1960.
That is the important figure.
In general, during the 1950s, movements in wage rates and movements in profits went very closely together, which is only natural, and the figures about this were perfectly clearly revealed in the last report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes, issued last July. In 1961 as a whole, company profits were substantially down on 1960.
I know the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about taxation, but I do not think that it is one of his most powerful comparisons. We all quote these statistics, but some make better points than others. That was not quite as good a point as others, because 1952 was only one of two years in which the Excess Profits Levy operated, and no one on either side believed that the Excess Profits Levy had come to stay. I was a back bencher at the time, and I must say that I never thought it a good tax. I am glad that it lasted only two years, and I believe that that was the view of most of the House. Many hon. Members were extremely critical of it—

Mr. D. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that during 1950 profits, dividends and wages went apace?

Sir E. Boyle: Profits are the key point here, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we now have a combined rate of Profits Tax on a level of profits which governs not only dividends, but the level of undistributed reserves and, therefore, the likelihood of shareholders getting capital appreciation——

Mr. D. Jones: The Financial Secretary has not answered my question. I hope that he will not shirk it.

Sir E. Boyle: I am not shirking it. I think that the key point is that profits

were £200 million lower than in 1960. My right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Colonies was extremely outspoken about dividends in the debate we had last summer. I do not have a detailed breakdown of dividends, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that replies given in the House show quite clearly that the majority of companies have taken notice of what was said about dividends at the time of the July measures—

Mr. Ross: Would it be worth while recalling what was said last night? During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill it was said that over the last ten years company profits had risen by £ 1,000 million.

Sir E. Boyle: So many things were said last night that, for a moment, I did not appreciate to what the hon. Gentleman was referring, but he himself is a good debater, and knows very well that we cannot have a high rate of investment or a high rate of economic growth without a good level of profits.
What I was concerned about was whether profits and personal incomes were moving in a disproportionate way as compared with one another, and my point was that last year it did not happen. On the contrary, company profits, as a whole, fell during 1961.
I shall not comment on the very agreeable speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who reminded me of what I believe was one of the worst poems ever written by Julia Moore:
While eating dinner this dear little child Was choked on a piece of beef.
I will leave the subject of beef to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones), who, I thought, made a sincere speech, said that too many wealthy people were too complacent about poverty. I shall say two or three things to him on that——

Mr. D. Jones: Poverty in particular.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right about this in general. As one who has been in the Government for some time now, I can say that the question of the living standards of the poorest people take a good


share of the time and consideration of the Government.
The hon. Member had some hard things to say about National Assistance. I wonder whether the feeling in the country is quite as he made it out to be. When I was at the Treasury in 1955 and 1956, National Assistance total payments amounted to £ 100 million; they now run at about £170 million. My own belief is that a great many of the poorer people, just on the fringe of National Assistance, have never had it better from the National Assistance Board. That is to say, a great many people get, not the maximum payment but an average weekly payment of, it may be, 25s, or 30s. a week from the Board.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system of disregards is more generous than it has been before, and I believe that this is a sign that we do take note of the problems of the poorest.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Member appreciate that what we are now discussing is the question of the cost of living index, and the rise in the cost of living? Unless there is a change in relation to these fixed payments we are not meting out justice. Since the announcement of the last increase in National Assistance payments—on the figures given two months ago by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—it would take an extra £1 million a week to make up for what has been eroded by the rise in the cost of living. Since then there has been another two points increase. Secondly, there has been no change in the National Assistance scales, and, therefore, the increase of 5s. a week has been wiped out by the increase in the cost of living.

Sir E. Boyle: It has happened in the past.

Mr. Ross: It is happening now.

Sir E. Boyle: I am answering the hon. Member's point. I do not blame him. He makes rather long interventions, but having done so he must listen to the replies. I am pointing out that this is not a unique happening; it happens in all Governments. He must recall that sometimes the situation has been the other way round. On the last occasion but one when National Assistance scales were raised those on National Assistance

had a real increase in their standard of living. We must consider this over a term of years and not over a period merely of some months.
I have answered a good number of points that have been made in the debate, and I want now to say something rather more constructive about prices and incomes, because they are extremely important. The trend during the period from 1958 to 1962 may be broken into two fairly distinct periods. From the beginning of 1958 until the middle of 1960 the overall level of prices was fairly stable. The stability of the retail price index during that time was due to two main factors. The first was a big fall in world commodity prices in 1957. I am going on to say—as my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies has often said in the past—that I am sure that our return to the use of monetary policy has had some impact on the terms of trade. It is remarkable how favourable movements in the terms of trade have often coincided with the determination of Governments to strengthen sterling by the use of the monetary instrument. The other factor was the reduction of Purchase Tax and certain Excise duties in the 1957 Budget.
On the other hand—anticipating the obvious objection from hon. Members opposite—we all know that if demand in the economy is excessive no power on earth can keep prices stable. I am sure that, for the reasons stated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have at times to use indirect taxation upwards as well as downwards.
The main reason underlying the rise in retail prices in the last four years has been the increase in personal incomes. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) looks at page 13 of the Economic Survey he will see that the rise in the total of wages and salaries takes up a good part of the increase in personal incomes. If he looks at the table he will find that between the fourth quarter of 1960 and the second quarter of 1961 the biggest increase was in wages and salaries. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman will agree that my main point was that the figures given on Tuesday are not to be taken as easily as he suggested.

Sir E. Boyle: I agree, but when one is answering a supplementary question one is likely to invoke the enmity of the House if one gives an answer of such a length as one would give in replying to a debate. It has been done by Ministers before now, but it has never been popular.
Between 1958 and the beginning of 1962, industrial production rose by about 12 per cent. and the gross domestic product at constant prices rose by 2 to 2½ per cent, a year. Allowing for the improvement in terms of trade over the period this increase in production would have allowed aggregate wages, salaries and profits to rise by 2½ to 3 per cent. a year if the overall price level was to remain stable, but increases in income were very much larger during this period.
In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley, who said that people should have the advantages of increased productivity, I would ask him to study paragraph 7 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 1626, which states:
But some arguments which have in the past been widely used to justify higher wages and salaries certainly ought not to be given the same weight as hitherto. For example, arguments derived from the increased cost of living, or from the trends of profits or productivity in a particular industry, cannot in present circumstances be regarded as providing of themselves a sound basis for an increase.
The paragraph continues, and this is important:
There may, however, be cases in which an increase could be justified as part of an agreement under which those concerned made a direct contribution, by accepting more exacting work, or more onerous conditions, or by a renunciation of restrictive practices, to an increase of productivity and a reduction of costs.".
The point of that reference to productivity is that it would be unfair if the parts of the economy where there had been increased productivity, only the workers in those parts were to get the benefits of it.

D. Jones: o not think that the Financial Secretary is being quite fair. In reading that paragraph he put greater emphasis on the last part of it. I would like to quote the first part and put the emphasis on that. It states:
But some arguments which have in the past been widely used to justify higher wages

and salaries certainly ought not to be given the same weight as hitherto. For example, arguments derived from the increased cost of living, in particular or from the trends of profits or productivity n a particular industry, cannot in present circumstances be regarded as providing of themselves a sound basis for an increase.
If one puts the emphasis on that part of the quotation one gets the matter in its proper perspective. I am interpreting it in precisely the same way as the trade union movement is now interpreting it.

E. Boyle: haps we may both be allowed to read the passage in our own way. I have no with to run away from the question which the hon. Member for Burnley asked. I am pointing out that in certain parts of the economy it is more easy to increase productivity than in others and that it would be wrong for only the workers in those parts to get the benefits of that increased productivity simply because they happen to work in them.
I was also asked what the Government's incomes policy has achieved so far. It is difficult to answer that question precisely. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] However, I anticipated that this point would be raised and the best I can say is this: I think that it would have been reasonable to suppose, in the absence of an incomes policy, that the hourly wage rate in April this year would have been about 6 per cent. higher than in the previous year. In fact, the increase was about 5 per cent.
The difference between those two figures can be roughly regarded as showing the effect of the Government's policy so far. That may not seem a very big change, but one must remember that a high proportion of the increases in wage rates in the year ending April, 1962, was the consequence of settlements made before the incomes policy was announced. If one takes the six months' period from October, 1961, to April, 1962, wage rates actually rose during that period by 2½2 per cent. They would, I believe, have risen by 3 per cent. with-out our incomes policy.
The difference between 2½2 per cent. and 3 per cent. is appreciable and I entirely dispute, just as the O.E.C.D. Report disputed, that the incomes policy of the Government has been a failure. It has already made a difference to the rate of wage increases. I cannot now deploy all the figures to the House


because time prevents me from doing so. However, this difference has been partly due to some fall in the size of the average award, particularly since the publication of the Government's White Paper. I believe that this was the most important White Paper on any economic subject since the 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy.
There has also been an effect on the postponement of increases because the bargaining was more protracted than usual or the dates of the increases were deferred until the end of the pause. Retail prices in the United Kingdom have risen sharply since last July, more than the average rise since 1950, but some of this, as my right hon. and learned Friend made perfectly clear, was due to a temporary rise in the price of potatoes and other vegetables. I believe that there should not be any substantial further rise in retail prices during the remainder of the year. The price prospect for the second half of this year is distinctly brighter than what we have experienced during the first half.
It is not easy to estimate what would be the long-terms effect on prices of continuing our present incomes policy, but just for the purposes of illustration I will put it to the House in this way. On the assumption that future wage increases are damped down as much as the calculations I have given suggest that they were damped down between October, 1961, and April, 1962, and on the assumption that increases in other incomes are similarly kept under control and that import prices remain at their present level, it is possible that retail prices will rise 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. each year less than they otherwise would. This may not seem a dramatic figure. However, if we could achieve over a term of years an average rise of retail prices 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. less than we have experienced during the 1950's, this would make a substantial difference to our competitive power abroad. Of that I have no doubt whatever.
If any country wants to achieve rising living standards, this must be based not simply on boosting exports or boosting some particular kind of economic activity. It must be based on the ability to achieve a first-class economic performance right along the line.

D. Jones: Which the Government have not done.

E. Boyle: I am pointing out that the biggest problem we have faced during the 1950s has been the perpetual tendency for increases of personal incomes to advance more rapidly than increases in production. I agree entirely from those who say that, from time to time, there have been periods when we have had superadded to the problem I have mentioned the additional problem of excess demand on our resources. However, looking ahead to the 1960s, I am quite sure that the prospects in this country for rises in living standards and safeguarding the living standards of those who are poorest will be infinitely brighter if we stick firmly to the incomes policy on which we have embarked.
There is a section of the Press which is looking all the time for signs that the policy is failing, which is all the lime asking its readers the question whether the Government will shortly be forced to abandon their, policy. Although this is not a major economic debate, I am very glad that it has taken place, for it gives me an opportunity to tell the House plainly that we have no intention of abandoning this policy. I think that the results we have already achieved show its importance, and I am quite sure that, if we can achieve that slowing down in the rise in retail prices which I have indicated to the House, the benefits for our competitive power and the living standards of all our people will be infinitely greater than even hon. Members on either side of the House suppose.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: When we take into account the gravity of the implications of the hon. Gentleman's peroration, the first question which comes to mind is, what on earth have the Government been doing for ten years? They have lived with their aura of never having had it so good—"There is nothing to worry about. I'm all right Jack". Belatedly, we now come down to the crux of our continued economic existence, far less prosperity, and of the influence which Britain will be able to have in the world. This is my complaint against the Government in this matter.
As a result of the Government's recent actions, millions of our people are having to face present increases without any help at all, apart from the help which the House can give them— help which is denied by the Government. I refer particularly to those who are dependent on National Insurance and on supplementary assistance through the National Assistance Board. In November, 1960, something was given, but that has been eroded away. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that there have been times in the past when this has happened. We raised this debate tonight to try to make the Gov-

ernment face their current responsibilities in respect of these people, old-age pensioners and the like. It is no use talking about average earnings in their case. What is their income? — £2 17s. 6d. for a single person or £4 12s. 6d. for a couple. Let us consider the effect of rising prices upon them.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.